pulsewidth @ pulsewidth @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

423

Joined

6 mo. ago

A bullet never went through his ear. The FBI amended their statement to say he was 'grazed' by a bullet or a bullet fragment, after initially questioning if he had been hit at all (because his medical team withheld all information from them during the investigation - which was unusual and suspicious). I mean you could see plain as day just a few weeks later when he removed the bandage his ear was almost completely undamaged.

They like this one though - he's very easy to manipulate. Why get rid of him when they can just get everything they want from him.

I don't know where you read that England used the US spelling until the 1890s, your own quote states that the 1829 Wohler publication caused 'almost wholesale' (overwhelming) adoption of the 'aluminium' spelling in England and Germany.

The Wikipedia article disagrees with itself a little on timelines to be honest. Under Origins it says 'aluminum' was used in Britain between the years of... 1812, when Davy published his textbook (prior to that it was 'alumium'), and... that same year in 1812, when:

"British scientist Thomas Young wrote an anonymous review of Davy's book, in which he proposed the name aluminium instead of aluminum, which he thought had a "less classical sound". This name persisted: although the -um spelling was occasionally used in Britain, the American scientific language used -ium from the start."

Then in Spelling section states what you've quoted which conflicts with the above account on timelines of adoption stretching the change to 1827.

Regardless though, it doesnt change the story much. There was use of both for two decades (not one) in Germany and the UK before they standardized on 'aluminium'. OK.

Brits still haven't used 'aluminum' for ~200 years, American scientists used it never, and Webster's dictionary & American engineer Charles Martin Hall (who wanted to advertise his process with the name Aluminum as it resembled platinum and therefore sounded more valuable and prestigious) are the clearly cited cause of its widespread use in the US & Canada (wiki states both were used widely prior to Hall's publication in the US, and 'aluminium' was more common), but.. nah, this is the Brits fault?

I'm not so sure I'm the one who misread.

Nah, he's run out of feet to shoot - next shot is aimed for the groin.

I do wish we could fast forward to the part where he Hitlers himself in a bunker.

I've never seen one in Australia. They don't meet the ADR (Australian Design Rules) so they literally cannot be sold except for use on private land - a farmer could drive one around their field if they so desired. When asked about international sales Musk said he didn't want to design it for a global market because that would "make the design worse" which is really saying something.

This article is from last year but still applicable. Given sales and events since then I think the title can be updated from "any time soon" to "ever", and that warms my heart a little. https://www.drive.com.au/news/why-tesla-cybertruck-not-coming-australia/

Most importantly - the time and people = money.

My last job had a dev, UAT, and prod environments because they knew it was important enough to the business to pay for them.

I dont pay me anything for running my home environment - so, there is only production. And lots of backups.

Well yes and no, but mostly no. The originally-proposed name by the Brit who named it was actually alumium. Scientists in other European countries (not the UK) gave him feedback that it should have the prefix 'ium' and logically be named aluminium as it is refined from an alumina/alumine oxide, following the naming pattern of other elements. He agreed and refined it to aluminium, but also used aluminum in a textbook he wrote around the same time.

This was all within a decade or so more than 200 years ago. The scientific world settled on aluminium long before any products had even hit the market in the US, but Noah Webster for whatever reason decided to use the spelling 'aluminum' in his dictionary in 1828, even though US scientists were already using 'aluminium' and it was more common locally. And once it was in the dictionary (with no mention of the alternate spelling) it stuck.

So this one is mostly on the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Etymology

Yeah, even in my excessively long reply to a one sentence comment I was skipping over a lot of information for brevity, and I'm not a historian. My point was only to illuminate that the US stance pre-WW2 involvement was not dissimilar to today's - broadly the govt doesnt care that people suffer even to the point of genocide now nor then, as long as national interests (basically business and economy) are unimpeded.

Thanks for the added info.

I lay the blame at the IDF and their far-right Likud government who has openly said they will protect any IDF soldiers accused of war crimes.

I don't wish to tar a whole country with the same brush.

USA was profiting quite nicely off Nazi Germany in World War 2 right up until the USA entered the war in 1941. Some historians argue there is nothing wrong with that. I think many would disagree.

The US government at the time was lobbied heavily by business and private citizens (including the Nazi Party of America) to stay neutral in the war, so they largely did just that right up until Pearl Harbour made it so they could not turn away. There were exceptions, eg: oil and metals used for creating ammunition were agreed not to be sold as part of the Allied Agreement with the UK (and others) and boats coming in and out were blockaded. But even that didn't stop big fans of fascism, such as the Texaco CEO at the time whom supplied oil to the Nazis up until late 1940.

So, honestly I don't think a lot has changed.

I guess the US government wasn't directly funding WW2, but they also didn't care one bit until it affected them directly - it was making their donors money. Paralleled today the US govt at large doesn't care, and primarily funds Israel for two reasons: protecting their oil interests in the middle east (business donors and strategic benefits), and every dollar provided in the budget is actually a voucher to go buy some weapons or military equipment from a US firm - so again, its to cynically drive military-industrial investment (strategic) and protect their business donors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torkild_Rieber

For Shure maybe, but what about for other audio products companies?

P. S. I unironically believe 2025 may be looked back on as the year of the Linux desktop. May have finally got through the trough, we'll see though.

Upgraded to Linux or Windows 11?

Because nobody is claiming you'll lose functionality with Windows 11, so your post seems to imply Linux but I'm unsure.

He's one of the highest profile openly gay Republicans ever.

Given that context, I don't think it's surprising at all.

Yeah, means Signal would just not have a presence eg an office or local routing/CDN servers in the countries that demand backdoors.

It would mean slower service for anyone in such countries, but the service would not stop working or become less secure.

It's negative either way, as it chips away at the legitimacy of private E2E chat, and legislators the world over seemed determined not to learn that there's no such think as "backdoors, but just for the good guys". You either have a resilient end-to-end zero trust encrypted system or you don't.

Yes, agreed. And calculators are essentially tabulators, and operate almost just like a skilled person using an abacus.

We shouldn't really be surprised because we designed these machines and programs based on our own human experiences and prior solutions to problems. It's still neat though.

People from Denmark also all learn English during school and have done since at least the 60s, which is why you found that only 15% of them can't speak English. Over 50% of Danes correspond in English for their work and are confident they can read English news according to 2013 survey. The proportion of US Americans that can't read AP News stories is honestly probably higher, with the US now at 21% illiteracy.

AP News may be primarily US-focused news source, but they are a global news organization. They sell their stories via syndication to hundreds of other news organizations and newspapers worldwide, in multiple languages, and have done for a very long time. To decide that all their articles are automatically for US audiences is just wrong.

Gaslighting is repeatedly presenting information that's untrue to convince someone of an alternate reality. Literally not possible to do in a single message, and nothing I wrote is not factual.

I only tried to let you see how Americentrist your response to OOP was, and your subsequent response is to weaponise victimhood to dismiss any introspection. I will not waste further time.

This is a news article published in the 'world news' community of a worldwide Internet forum, from one of the oldest and most respected not-for-profit news agencies in the world, whom themselves published the article in their 'world news' section. It discusses Danish people's overwhelmingly negative responses to the American president's tariffs.

And you somehow make this into "ugh why to the liberal elite always only care about what the rest of the world thinks".

Maybe, just maybe, this article wasn't written nor shared solely for the demographic of USA voters?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but boats splitting in half is not uncommon, as far as boat structural failures go it's a relatively common one.

Stats on such a thing are unavailable but there are many news articles regarding boats splitting in half. I'd hope the safety factor on a fission reactor is several orders of magnitude higher than a seafaring vessel.

https://www.marineinsight.com/videos/why-do-ships-break-from-the-middle/

So, uh. What about Lemmy?

They can also crawl this publically-accessible social media source for their data sets.

I'm on board with abandoning mainstream social media, but my point is that your suggestion would not solve the problem just relocate it. A better solution to the AI conglomerates stealing everyone's data from the open Internet is legislation and regulations - ie tackling the whole 'stealing data' component, along with stronger privacy regulations for everyone to make it harder for them to do the same in the future. It's nice seeing the EU taking some positive steps, but we will not see the US take any steps in that direction anytime soon, due to corporate capture of their politicians and the AI companies all being in the top 10 most wealthy companies in the US.