“Line go up” is the animating force of the agethe rich and powerful, the critical philosophical principal around which our entire societytheir livesis are arranged.
I choose not to confuse their values as mine or that of my community.
You're using the New York Times to support the idea that the New York Times didn't support the war.
What do you think could be an issue with using that evidence?
Edit: I find it amusing that the article you shared is partially blocked (censored) unless I sign up to the NYT.
These sources show that the New York Times supported the war because it poorly reported the idea that Iraq had WMDs. The NYT did not do its due dilligence, intentionally mislead the public, or a mix of factors.
If you're wanting to practice soldering, and build a small, cheap project at the same time, I'd recommend cheap project kits from Aliexpress (there are probably equivalents on Amazon). Do projects that are through hole soldering first, before attempting SMD components.
There are plenty to choose from and they're cheap, so if it doesn't work then it doesn't matter much.
I understand where you're coming from: If natural dialogue is preferred for a creative work, then having laughter audio is inappropriate.
I disagree that canned laughter and live audience laughter are equivalent.
With live audience reactions it's like watching a theatre presentation, you get to be part of the crowd. We get a chance to laugh at the jokes at a natural pace (allowing for pauses so we don't miss the next joke) that the audience would set, and their reactions are modulated organically.
Canned laughter doesn't do this, it doesn't set a natural pace. It is calculated by an audio engineer, and the laughter will be an unnatural reaction to the joke presented.
It's the difference between a genuine and forced smile. We can naturally sense something is off. A live audience reaction is superior to canned laughter in most cases.
That being said, some shows don't need laughter audio to be enjoyable.
I like the imagery of the last post because it was tapping into the idea of waves and how sub-atomic particles behave like waves.
However, erm actually 🤓 ...
you pet your dog and the electron-orbitals of your skin overlap with the electron-orbitals of his fur
No, they don't overlap. Electrons are negatively charged, and like repels like. The orbitals will repel each other. This repulsion is the reason why you can feel the fur.
Edit: I'm getting nay-sayers that reckon they do. Please provide a reference that explains inter-molecular orbitals that cause bonding for a hand touching fur. The only thing I can think of this happening is for transition states. This would require a chemical reaction. I don't think we categorise "touch" under "requiring a chemical reaction".
Because the structure of the transition state is a first-order saddle point along a potential energy surface, the population of species in a reaction that are at the transition state is negligible. Since being at a saddle point along the potential energy surface means that a force is acting along the bonds to the molecule, there will always be a lower energy structure that the transition state can decompose into. This is sometimes expressed by stating that the transition state has a fleeting existence, with species only maintaining the transition state structure for the time-scale of vibrations of chemical bonds (femtoseconds).
Up and down votes are not a "agree / disagree" button. They are for dis/encouraging posts. You can upvote a post you disagree with but can see that it is useful for the discussion.
Isaac Newton was a life time bachelor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Personality