Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AC
Posts
0
Comments
131
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • .C came first. I don't usually use it though; I usually use .cc or .cxx, but if I'm making some tiny test source, I often use .C. I'm strongly opposed to the .cpp extension because calling C++ "CPP" leads to confusion with the preexisting (before C++) use of the initialism to refer to the C preprocessor. There's a reason why CPPFLAGS refers to preprocessor flags and CXXFLAGS refers to C++ flags.

  • It’s not shelf stable. It has a short lifespan.

    Ultra-pasteurized milk has a remarkable shelf life, even when unrefrigerated.

    And how is it better for us? Considering a majority of the world can’t digest it is a big sign as to why plant based is better.

    Your argument becomes a non-sequitur when extended to people who are lactose tolerant. The mere existence or ubiquity of lactose intolerance does not entail that milk is bad for the lactose tolerant. Perhaps plant substitutes to cow milk are better for even the lactose tolerant, but lactose intolerance is completely irrelevant to the minority of us such as myself who produce sufficient enzymes to digest lactose without any difficulty whatsoever.

  • I meant that electromagnetism is ubiquitous in its role in the nature of ordinary matter itself.

    Are magnet’s the most dangerous thing in the universe?

    No, not even remotely. That's not to say that the extreme magnetic fields of magnetars wouldn't be awesomely dangerous, but "most dangerous thing in the universe" is an absurdly high bar to meet.

    After all Blackholes are powerful magnets

    The accretion disk consisting of material surrounding a black hole is capable of generating strong magnetic fields, rather than the black hole itself.

  • Why does philosophy constantly twist things into an over complicated mythical mess, and then act like it’s some novel insight?

    I cannot stand that either, but this sort of pseudo-profundity is more common in some specific schools of thought, rather than philosophy in general.