Even if you imagine doing them separately, the acceleration of the Earth cannot be calculated based on just a singular force unless you assume nothing else is exerting a force on the Earth during the process of the fall. For a realistic model, this is a bad assumption. The Earth is a massive system which interacts with a lot of different systems. The one tiny force exerted on it by either the feather or bowling ball has no measurable effect on the motion of Earth. This is not just a mass issue, it's the fact that Earth's free body diagram would be full of Force Vectors and only one of them would either be the feather or bowling ball as they fall.

As for my second point, I understand your model and I am defining these references frames by talking about where an observer is located. An observer standing still on Earth would measure the acceleration of the feather or bowling ball to be 9.81 m/s/s. If we placed a camera on the feather or bowling ball during the fall, then it would also measure the acceleration of the Earth to be 9.81 m/s/s. There is no classical way that these two observers would disagree with each other in the magnitudes of the acceleration.

Think of a simpler example. A person driving a car towards someone standing at a stop sign. If the car is moving 20 mph towards the pedestrian, then in the perspective of the car's driver, the pedestrian is moving 20 mph towards them. There is no classical way that these two speeds will be different.

This argument is deeply flawed when applying classical Newtonian physics. You have two issues:

1. Acceleration of a system is caused by a sum of forces or a net force, not individual forces. To claim that the Earth accelerates differently due to two different forces is an incorrect application of Newton's second law. If you drop a bowling and feather in a vacuum, then both the feather and the bowling ball will be pulling on the Earth simultaneously. The Earth's acceleration would be the same towards both the bowling ball and the feather, because we would consider both the force of the feather on the Earth and the force of the bowling ball on the Earth when calculating the acceleration of the Earth.
2. You present this notion that two different systems can accelerate at 9.81 m/s/s towards Earth according to an observer standing on the surface of Earth; but when you place an observer on either surface of the two systems, Earth is accelerating at a different rate. This is classically impossible. If two systems are accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s towards Earth, then Earth must be accelerating 9.81 m/s/s towards both systems too.

The irony: This is basically what we have. When it comes to action, as senators, Kamala and Bernie voted the same way on most issues. Obviously, they are not the same people, but their viewpoints led to more or less the same voting actions.

Project Zomboid. Feels like a Sims game with zombie and great survival elements. Arguably, the best zombie survival game to hit the market. Supports split screen couch co-op.

The smartphone is a different beast. Hardware and software companies spent millions of dollars of R&D to create the most psychologically addicting and attention demanding device as possible.

I agree, this is not a good argument against the existence of god, but it seems to be a fine argument against certain models of god. To get out of the paradox, one must be willing to give up certain notions about god. Either:

1. God isn't all knowing, so it's unaware of all the evil in the universe.
2. God doesn't have infinite power, making god unable to create a universe without evil (perhaps due to limitations of what god can and cannot do.
3. God is not entirely good or god's definition of good does not align with what us humans have been taught. God doesn't see evil where we see evil so it does not use its infinite power and knowledge to change it.

I think there are a lot of theists who would have trouble accepting one of these notions, which would keep them stuck within this paradox.

The Japanese were attempting to negotiate surrender with the "neutral" USSR prior to the nuclear bombs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan The US wanted an unconditional surrender which included the destruction of the Japanese emperor, who at the time, was the head of the Japanese religion. To put this into perspective, consider the United States request similar to requesting the destruction of the Pope within the Vatican. Because of this, the Japanese were seeking better terms of surrender which did not involved the removal of their religious leader. What the Japanese did not know at the time was the USSR was not a neutral party, and they were secretly mobilizing their forces on mainland Asia due to an agreement Stalin made with FDR prior to the US entering the war in Europe.

The reality is, once Japan learned that the USSR was not neutral and they were going to be fighting the US and the USSR in a two front war, this is when the emperor forced Japan to surrender.

To put things into perspective, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were sadly, just another two cities leveled by the US. The US were performing night carpet bombing on Japanese cities as soon as 1944. Many of these raids leveled several square km of urban areas. https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217. This is why people argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably not the catalyst to Japan's surrender because the US have been leveling Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, long before the two nuclear bombs were dropped. None of these raids caused Japan to surrender before.

Reading your links, the correction you made seems semantically insignificant. Yumi is the word for "bow" in Japanese and longbows describe bows that are long. Longbows are not unique to the English, and there are a lot of bows that can be described as longbows. So my point is, if samurais used yumis that are long (which some did) then saying they used longbows is not incorrect. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us know what the Japanese called their bows, it was educational.

Describing someone using their race when it is a clear way to discern them from a crowd of people is not racist; but describing someone by their race when it's entirely irrelevant is likely driven by racism.

The kid being "black" in the statement adds nothing to the information. He could have easily said "I saw a large man at the door and I got scared" and it would not have been any different, since it isn't like he is trying discern the kid from a crowd. "Black" is being used to justify his fear of the person, and this is inherently racist.

The big bang (if it is still a valid theory) would have been unlike any explosion you have ever witnessed. The big bang was not an explosion of only matter, since time and space were both created during this event as well.

It's complicated. Yes, the country is going to shit, but it is also due to meta's "Big brother-like" data collection in the name of profit margins.

As mentioned in the article, Facebook could remove itself from this problem by not collecting data that could possibly incriminate people. The reason why they were able to hand over the data is because they were collecting their private messages.

The article answers your question.

Unlike most jobs, contract jobs are taxed more and require the worker to pay the out of pocket to operate. In the case of food delivery workers, this means the gas or electricity to run their vehicle and the maintenance costs for said vehicle.