This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
there is a story that medicine men of old gained noteriety when they discovered a predictable patern that no one else had, and used it to "prove" they had power, by timing their "cure" with the pattern of the event.
If one is merely to look at the history of our planet over the last few million years, it is rather rediculous to expect anything about it to remain constant.
There is a story that industry apologists of today point to irrelevant anecdotes to spoon feed those who want to believe them and ignore all of the scientific evidence available. I
Similar stories can be told about those who claimed that putting lead in gasoline wasn't hurting anybody, or that tobacco smoke didn't hurt anybody.
If one is merely to look at the history of our planet over the last few million years, it is rather rediculous to expect anything about it to remain constant.
That's nice since no one said to expect that. It would also be ridiculous to assume that because things change science cannot tell us anything about some of the causes of those changes.
there is a story that medicine men of old gained noteriety when they discovered a predictable patern that no one else had, and used it to "prove" they had power, by timing their "cure" with the pattern of the event.
If one is merely to look at the history of our planet over the last few million years, it is rather rediculous to expect anything about it to remain constant.
There is a story that industry apologists of today point to irrelevant anecdotes to spoon feed those who want to believe them and ignore all of the scientific evidence available. I
Similar stories can be told about those who claimed that putting lead in gasoline wasn't hurting anybody, or that tobacco smoke didn't hurt anybody.
That's nice since no one said to expect that. It would also be ridiculous to assume that because things change science cannot tell us anything about some of the causes of those changes.