Oni_eyes @ Oni_eyes @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

225

Joined

2 yr. ago

Definitely proof of Bacchus.

Already anticipated by the Ukrainians as they wheel out their newest anti-plane drones.

Fitted with a bouncy ball on the ventral side of the drone to allow for "skipping" into place under the plane prior to upward thrusting.

Sometimes the charge goes off immediately, sometimes it takes a little floorplay to prime. Preliminary testing has resulted in 9/10 devastated planes and 1/10 hybrid plane/drone offspring with a nuclear family.

Articulate the difference. You keep saying I'm missing the point or that there is a difference but you don't state what it is.

You're reading into it too much. I read your response to the other guy and went to the first example my mind thought of for government regulation of foodstuffs that are safe to consume but otherwise banned for a reason.

I for one would eat endangered species if it's all I had access to, but I understand the damage it would cause and am comfortable eating other sources of food. I also do love eating beef and pork and chicken, but I'm willing to reduce consumption of those for other sources if needed.

We see a ton of rainforest being chopped to expand access to cattle farming, tons of pollution runoff from farms, and a history of antibiotic resistance being transferred due to heavy antibiotic use in close quarter factory farms. I would argue those would be equally damaging to not just us, but also many ecosystems and the species in them.

So I draw an equivalence there. If you're not cool with eating endangered species, maybe you can ease off the gas on mammal based protein.

On the other hand, it's looking like we might be able to get around a lot of that damage with lab grown meat.

Would you eat lab grown meat if standard beef/poultry/pork were to be banned?

The point being? That it's fine to set government regulation to protect species from being wiped out and that somehow doesn't transfer to it being fine to regulate beef or other meats as we see them negatively affecting a vast swath of ecosystems including many of those endangered species? The harm has to be to the species being regulated and not from the species?

Are endangered species not also safe to eat generally?

They're all crustaceans.

Well whales and giraffes are both mammals, and since they're classed together due to a common ancestor it's fair to say they're related and you could group them together.

Just like how decapods and insects are classed with hexapods under crustacea, effectively making them related due to a common ancestor.

So you could say giraffes (or artiodactylans) are proto whales (or cetaceans) much like you could say crustaceans are proto insects. Or insects of the sea.

OK now you're just arguing in bad faith. You said the other guys example wasn't equitable because it's conflating banning a material with controlling quality. So I asked you the same concept but with a proper example and instead of responding with a coherent argument, you went with ridicule. Go play in traffic.

Shrimp and lobsters are decapods which belong in the arthropod group right alongside all of our insects. They are water insects by definition.

It's not at all like saying a whale is a fish because while they are both vertebrates, they split much sooner than arthropods do, and they do not share as many similar characteristics.

It would be like saying a shark is a fish (which it is).

Would you eat endangered species if available?

That's a government regulation that controls what you can consume that has nothing to do with food safety.

Stir fried meal worms have the consistency of chips, so it's really down the what seasoning you use. Pretty tasty ngl.

I've been eating insects. Cooked right, they're just as delicious as any other food.

Even without the sidewalk. Tons of trucks back in and take the front of the space behind them, basically turning them into compact only spaces.

Landed on neck after a snowboard jump, totally fine.

Decade later...

Lift a wooden chair the wrong way, threw out back.

Florida already passed a ban that focuses on state owned or leased property like government buildings and state parks in 2023. Those are public restrooms.

Are Trans men allowed in female bathrooms or are they now banned due to being male presenting?

If they are banned, then that is depriving the public of access to public facilities which their taxes pay for and the end result being a violation of their rights.

If they are not banned, then the original intent of the ban is bullshit and clearly a move to target a subset of the population and make public spaces less hospitable, which I would argue violates their civil rights to enjoy public spaces without harassment.

So then why isn't water wet if there is clearly liquid water touching liquid water?

How many molecules need to be touching to be considered an aggregate?

What is humidity other than the measurement of how saturated the air is with water vapor (or how wet the air is)

Fair enough, heat can't lose heat. However when it interacts with a substance some of the energy is "lost" in that it transfers to the substance. Unless it is a completely inert material.

Can you hold a unit of heat? Or do you hold a substance that is imbued with heat energy? Seems like a good reason to say the two are not equateable, which was the main point.

Other than that, a specific fields definition of wet does not make the term exclusive to that field. In aquatic science, wet still means something that water is adhering to. Water adheres to itself so water is wet.