@etorreborre You agree that a generalisation like that is false?
-
-
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@etorreborre the laws exist largely for bad drivers. . . who are generally safer at slower speeds (and there's plenty of them).2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shajra1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @etorreborre
@etorreborre@shajra do they start coming back to life if they go in reverse? Just how far can this thesis go?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @etorreborre
@etorreborre@shajra do you agree the thesis is fallacious now? We can replace it with a true one you know!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @etorreborre
@etorreborre@shajra wait that is easily agreed to but is different to the claim that less velocity correlates to less risk of adversity.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @etorreborre1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@etorreborre @shajra velocity relative to a fixed point ignores all the other possibly points. It is sloppy risk assessment.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.