Upload
Login or register

supahsayin

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:1/11/2011
Last Login:7/21/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 955 total,  1206 ,  251
Comment Thumbs: 5289 total,  6158 ,  869
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 91 Content: Srs Business → Level 92 Content: Srs Business
Comment Level Progress: 98% (98/100)
Level 243 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 244 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:6
Content Views:124433
Times Content Favorited:14 times
Total Comments Made:3384
FJ Points:7326

Text Posts

latest user's comments

#10 - I live in a small town on an island. I almost **** myself. 05/15/2016 on Ever been to Asia +2
#8 - Wait, Hog's Breath Cafe or Hog's Breath Saloon/Bar/Grill?  [+] (3 new replies) 05/15/2016 on Ever been to Asia +1
#9 - skeletorexplains (05/15/2016) [-]
In Australia it's Cafe.
User avatar
#27 - KillinTime (05/15/2016) [-]
We got one of those down in Knox, it's pretty ordinary.
#10 - supahsayin (05/15/2016) [-]
I live in a small town on an island. I almost shit myself.
#4 - He's so frustrated he turned into Aubrey Plaza. 05/13/2016 on His face shows just how... 0
#51 - One notable negative policy is Bernie's trademark 15 USD minim…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/12/2016 on When there's a cut scene in... +1
#55 - yusatatsuaki (05/12/2016) [-]
Eh, I see it as a position to actually negotiate from. It wouldn't be $15 at at once, it would be $15 be 2020.


I mean, when you work full time min wage, and are still under the poverty line, something is amiss and there needs to be a way to corrected.
User avatar
#64 - battletechmech (05/12/2016) [-]
By the way the poverty line is a percentage, if you work minimum wage you will always be in poverty because that's where the poverty line stays. The thing is that poverty in america means you get a color TV, a refrigerator, and food, if you don't act stupid with your money.
#67 - yusatatsuaki (05/12/2016) [-]
Interesting.

So you work full time at $7.25 40 hours a week, you end up with 15k a year.

10% of that goes to taxes.
So you have 13.5k a year.
Could you live on that, paying rent, utilities, food, transport?
Lets say you want to get out that situation, take night classes, can you afford that?
How about starting a family?


I have been homeless and poor for roughly half my life. It is a different experience. I was able to claw myself out, but I know people who haven't. I have also seen people pushed into it. When there isn't a safety net and something happens, say you get severally injured without adequate medical coverage, you are first in debt to the hospital, then your job may be at risk depending on your injury, you still have to pay rent and cover everything like you normally would.

User avatar
#53 - sMeXiNippZ (05/12/2016) [-]
Understandable, i think it should be at least a living wage due to the mentality of " if I work a minimum wage job I can't make ends meet or if I do it's barely so I might as well just go on welfare" which is a catch 22 on its own, if it kept up with the raising prices even when wages don't go up I've seen a few different studies that said the wage should be anywhere from $17-$21 if it kept up with inflation. But i raise you keeping a computer of all muslims in a government database, forcing another country to pay for a wall (i think we should create jobs in america for this project to help with unemployment) and no taxes on people who claim single on their taxes and make under $25k a year and then people who claim married on their taxes making a combined total of less than $50k a year pay no taxes?
#220 - Hey! I'd keep all of the improvements that you've made to … 02/14/2016 on This site is dying fast +2
#921 - Picture 02/13/2016 on Raining Memes, part 3! 0
#146 - Also, I need to go to bed. G'night! 02/11/2016 on suicide +1
#145 - The basis of your counter-argument here is defined by you sayi…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/11/2016 on suicide 0
User avatar
#154 - zlane (02/11/2016) [-]
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/03/estimating-human-mutation-rate-direct.html
www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010

>I'd also need a comparative rate of the appearance of beneficial or neutral mutations to complete your numbers

rest assured, beneficial mutations are much more infrequent(about 100 times less frequent) and have less potent effects than deletarious mutations both independently and cumulatively

>natural selection is that it, by nature, will work itself out.

it can't remove deleterious mutations at a sufficient rate, even when you provide the most charitable conditions for it do so. population size, fecundity, and mutation rate are the relevant factors here, and i think you'll find that it's impossible to find some set of values for these factors to make evolution work

every large genome animal gets 6-20 deletarious mutations per generation every generation. they constantly accumulate no matter how strong selection is. like i said, natural selection can only select organisms that are less fit than their progenitors for this reason.

it's not feasible that beneficial mutations could make up for this by increasing fitness considering how low the frequency, potency, and commulative potency( look up synergistic epistaties and antagonistic epistasis) is. and then take into the account that beneficial mutations take a long time to be expressed in populations compared to deletarious mutations
#133 - Yeah, complexity of our genome by nature has made it impossibl…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/11/2016 on suicide 0
User avatar
#135 - zlane (02/11/2016) [-]
User avatar
#146 - supahsayin (02/11/2016) [-]
Also, I need to go to bed. G'night!
User avatar
#145 - supahsayin (02/11/2016) [-]
The basis of your counter-argument here is defined by you saying that negative mutations occur at a faster rate than positive or neutral mutations. You need some links from unbiased sources. My first recommendation is to search "Scholarly Articles on ___" on google. It specifies lab documents and verified papers.
I'd also need a comparative rate of the appearance of beneficial or neutral mutations to complete your numbers. I see that your example is a hypothetical, but it would be good if you used those population studies to drive your case home.

Also, I think that the big thing about natural selection is that it, by nature, will work itself out. A single human may reproduce slowly, but they will have multiple offspring in one generation, slowing the rate of genetic entropy and increasing the chance that they have offspring that will have a beneficial or neutral mutation. Since it's know that humans may well have 3+ children every generation, the total population may increase exponentially. Thus, there will be a large amount of bloodshed, but the population seeks out the most viable mates, and the case is that a successful/beautiful/healthy parent will try to mate with another successful.healthy/beautiful parent.
User avatar
#154 - zlane (02/11/2016) [-]
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/03/estimating-human-mutation-rate-direct.html
www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010

>I'd also need a comparative rate of the appearance of beneficial or neutral mutations to complete your numbers

rest assured, beneficial mutations are much more infrequent(about 100 times less frequent) and have less potent effects than deletarious mutations both independently and cumulatively

>natural selection is that it, by nature, will work itself out.

it can't remove deleterious mutations at a sufficient rate, even when you provide the most charitable conditions for it do so. population size, fecundity, and mutation rate are the relevant factors here, and i think you'll find that it's impossible to find some set of values for these factors to make evolution work

every large genome animal gets 6-20 deletarious mutations per generation every generation. they constantly accumulate no matter how strong selection is. like i said, natural selection can only select organisms that are less fit than their progenitors for this reason.

it's not feasible that beneficial mutations could make up for this by increasing fitness considering how low the frequency, potency, and commulative potency( look up synergistic epistaties and antagonistic epistasis) is. and then take into the account that beneficial mutations take a long time to be expressed in populations compared to deletarious mutations
#126 - And yes, it would technically be artificial selection. … 02/11/2016 on suicide 0