Hmm. So are you thinking about the peer review part, primarily? Arxiv already exists and I’m guessing it’s easy to mirror.

I have a feeling, just based on how law works, that this will be highly subjective. I interpret your question as being about skill. If that’s not what you mean please correct me. (Sorry for the non-answer)

Even within criminal law, things like acquittal rate would very with the exact kind of practice - a guy that specialises in complex white-collar crime and takes easy cases might get a really good one without too much skill. Someone who takes anybody who will pay upfront will probably have a cruddy one. This could get even more extreme if you look at non-Western or historical systems where the result is almost guaranteed in advance. So, that’s not in the spirit of the question.

I seem to remember an XKCD What If where Randall Munroe mentions the highest paid (criminal?) attorney in the US, but there again, it was someone who sounded highly connected. Does that correspond to skill? (Edit: The late Ted Olson, who does appear to have defended criminal cases)

Somebody that actually knows a lot of names and legal history might be able to tell you something more useful, but just take it with a grain of salt.

I can’t think of a more reasonable definition of an evil person than a person who does a lot of evil.

Usually people have some kind of way of justifying an action to themselves, and there’s always a story that lead up to it. Everyone I’ve gotten to know well is part of one problem or another.

So, It’s not very interesting to ask where to draw the line, and even less useful. The important thing is what to do about it.

And that seems a bit high, considering how many rows could be in a production database. Could they be pricing on a log scale or something?

If you do, at least pick carefully. I can just picture some guy shooting a real estate agent because he looks fancy.

In more general spaces I find bringing it up instantly summons incels, unfortunately.

It does, although the name still could use improvement. It means liberation from the other end of the patriarchy, but it sounds like it might be a men’s separatism/incel thing.

The archaic concept of masculinity or femininity itself is wretched.

That works for me, but some people really like the construct of gender. Transpeople just being the most visible case.

If you want to get really into sports and car mechanics, or really into makeup and pastels that’s fine. Just don’t grow the corresponding bad emotional self-care or inauthentic relationships.

Hell, even animals can be trained to varying degrees.

Unless there’s actual hidden value here (possible), it’s more like a joke. Chickens rarely cross the road and they’re not getting paid.

If you’re specialised enough it can be really hard to tell what’s obvious. Like, you don’t want to do “grab the mouse, which is one of your computer peripherals” either. Or at least, I worry about doing something like that, and coming across as a dick.

Relevant XKCD.

When I say axle (that is the correct spelling for this, according to a quick search, FYI), I mean it has a stationary bearing in which it turns. So what you’re calling a “semipermanent but smooth rolling attached point”. A roller is a completely different simple machine with no sliding surfaces.

At the very least, novel applies. Lots of things roll, but what in nature has an axle? I’d also like to clarify that they probably didn’t use stone in real life, because that would be dumb. I suppose if we’re insisting it’s monolithic stone that’s true just because of the raw time it would take. And oh boy, they better be careful not to crack it.

If you have a proper axle, you have a lathe and turning a solid wheel for a cart shouldn’t be too hard. Failing that, or failing the idea to try turning, it has to be freehand, but plenty of people could do that (more so than today, probably, since every moment we spend in a classroom or office is a moment they would be working with their hands).

If it has to be a wheel that’s strong and light like for a chariot, it gets harder and you’ll need actual wheelwright skills, but just a cart should be able to run an a solid wheel. If you’re going for a chariot you probably want a reasonably well-fit axle as well, although my knowledge of chariot driving is too limited to be super sure.

They were just used to it. Even today, bathing frequency is culturally dependent.

When old love poetry talks about the musk of a lover, I do wonder at what range it was noticeable.

Depends what you mean by shovel. Little wooden scoops/spades might have been a thing, although hands will work nearly as well on soft substances. For bigger jobs the digging stick was the tool of choice, and then baskets to move the rubble or economic load (ocher, tubers) out.

I’m guessing multi-piece wooden shovels, if they were ever commonly used, had to wait for some level of civilisation. That’s a very difficult thing to make with no proper tools, and not trivial even with. Ditto for bone, and nothing else available in nature is strong and rigid enough under bending.

It always bugs me how cavemen wheels aren’t ever depicted with a matching axle. That’s the hard and novel part! I’m glad this guy found an alternative for it.

Mandatory I’d have died more than once, but I suspect I would have been good at mental things like tracking and storytelling. I’d probably suck at everything else, too.

Or just to better understand how and where to catch them. Don’t forget we hunted all kinds of things to extinction anyway.

Do they get sore all the time? That sounds like a lot of weight on not much area.

One is Japanese comics, the other two sound related.