EnderBoy

Most every restaurant you work at will allow waitstaff to have food cooked from the kitchen, even if at a discount.

A good restaurant will demand that the waitstaff try the food, including all daily specials, if only so they can better answer questions from patrons.

He found a gif of Samuel L Jackson. What more do you want?

Mr. Levitt, In one of your blog posts you state "For every mile walked drunk, turns out to be eight times more dangerous than the mile driven drunk."

Now, I understand the mathematics behind this. I also understand completely that you are not condoning drunk driving. But I always found the logic behind this to be suspect. Drunk driving doesn't just hurt you. In the case of an accident, it also potentially hurts or kills those in the car with you, and those in any automobiles that you crash into. These factors aren't present with the drunk walker.

If you posit simply a lone driver on an empty road, your conclusion makes sense. But that's not the case in the real world. So I'm curious. Do you still stand by your conclusion and, if so, how do you account for the extra factors present in a drunk driving situation that aren't present in a drunk walking scenario?

Thanks

Accepting your numbers at face value, I have a difficult time accepting your conclusions based off of them. Of the ~2,400 killed, only ~700 could be identified or 30%. So we can't draw any conclusion on the allegiance of the other 70%.

But of those 700, ~400 were militants of some kind. Now you base your 4% on just those al queda killed from the 30% identified.

My question is why can't you extrapolate from the 400/700 ratio to come up with a potential overall success rate of around 60%? Look, I'm not claiming that 60% is by any means stellar. It's clearly not. But why would your conclusion necessarily assume that 100% of those not identified must not have been associated with a terrorist group?

Hey Scott. UW Madison Alum. When I was touring the campus in 1994, I remember seeing The Onion on stands and thinking it was an April Fools joke from a real paper titled The Union. I'd never seen anything like it and in my time there, I couldn't believe it continued to be consistently funny week after week. I even saved every week's paper from 1995-1997 until The Great Reckoning of Mother forced me to recycle the whole lot of them.

So question: do you have any idea where I can find the infographic "Is Mike Tyson as smart as Stephen Hawking is strong?" I've been looking for that sucker online for years.