It is slightly less gramatically correct, but that fits the meme.

True, I misspoke. Cats right themselves very quickly. I think I mixed it up with something about humans. Pretty sure they need more like 4 feet to turn over completely, but I suppose most cats don't start a fall completly upsidedown.

That's the idea I was referring to, yeah.

Do note that cats right themselves in just a few feet, it's the supposed survivability at terminal velocity that's interesting. 90% cats that fall more than 2 stories and survive long enough to be brought in for treatment survive, but the vast majority have bodily trauma, and most sustain fractures of some kind.

Firstly, saying "nu uh" and shouting "misinformation" is no way to interact with people. Focusing on typos in particular shows that you have no better arguments.

Secondly, there have been a few studies about cat injuries after falls, with conclusions in both directions. 1987, the study where this idea originated, noticing fewer injuries after 7 stories. 2004, a study finding roughly consistent injuries below 7 stories, but a sharp increase above.

After reading through them, I can think of several confounding factors. Since both studies are of cats brought in to clinics, there are many uncontrolled factors such as the surface the cats tended to land on in the area the studies were conducted, as well as the likelihood of falling on street furniture or shrubs, survivorship bias of different populations not bothering to bring in heavily or lightly injured cats, or the unrecorded cats that died on impact.

Thirdly, I think I insinuated that long falls are not particularly dangerous for house cats, which is somewhat wrong. In both of the linked studies, about 90% of treated cats survived, but nearly all of them sustained at least bodily trauma, if not fractured limbs, vertebrae, teeth, and mandibles.

Lastly, housecats reach terminal velocity after 5 stories, which is the interesting detail I was refering to. My reasoning for why was incorrect, as cats rights themselves in only a few feet of distance. I think there may have been a study about humans falling less than 4 feet being more dangerous that 12 feet due to head injuries or something, but I don't recall. Either way, it resulted in a mangled reference that did not deserve ridicule.

Actually, short falls are more dangerous than long falls.

Because cats can rotate mid-air to land on their feet, and (most) cats can survive terminal velocity falls with little issue, falls too short for a cat to turn over can be much more dangerous.

Because there are other things that change usable space, like file tables, OS stuff, and bad sectors. The unit conversion is the biggest one, but not the only one.

Calls to CPS that break families, and probably one altercation with firearms. Maybe a few get run over, either on purpose or because the vehicle was too tall to see out of properly.

Being a CEO and the like really kills a person's humanity. I really don't like drawing a line were some people are human and others aren't, but C-suite executives make a strong argument.

Well that's because this is a disgusted upvote.

I think the incredible instability of python environments also leads to people being much more aware of python's dependencies. Similar with NPM, but with a bigger focus on vulnerabilities there.

And image generation!

This is the only way I would ever use one. Local, open, more ethically trained.