thebestaquaman @ thebestaquaman @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

602

Joined

2 yr. ago

Here I was, thinking that this had to be at least in part a publicity stunt thing (no way they need 300 000 condoms), and reading that the Tokyo games needed to buy 20 000 extra when the first 70 000 started running out.

Honestly, I like the combined color/BW style

I've always wondered why this is? In our country a previous prime minister remains highly relevant and politically active until they retire, even if that is long after they were in the position. The leader of the current largest opposition party was prime minister for eight years before losing the previous election, and is set to be the opposition's front runner for PM in the next election in not too long.

Like, why didn't e.g. Obama run for a position on the senate after finishing his second term as president? He's definitely still young enough, even in countries where you don't need to be a fossil to have political power.

There wouldn't be a war in Ukraine if Ukraine just gave up.

Let's turn that around:

There won't be a WWIII if Russia just gives up trying to force close-by countries to listen to them under threat of war.

Russia has already stationed short and medium range nuclear weapons in Belarus, and somehow they think that stationing conventional weapons in Germany is a breach of some kind of "deal"? That's ludicrous. If they don't want near by countries arming themselves to the teeth they should consider not threatening them with war all the time. We are not threatening to attack Russia. Notice that. NATO is arming up, and explicitly saying "if you attack us, we are prepared." Meanwhile Russia is explicitly threatening "military action" if NATO dares to arm up.

You could look up some videos on "mutation design" which is a stochastic design method, which is basically used to design structures (like drone bodies) by using random mutations. It really shows how evolution works in real time.

Huh, TIL

Aren't crabs in general just like the spiders of the sea?

I can't see how the force on his arms can become larger than his body weight, which he should be able to hold up?

Other than that, I perfectly agree that this guy ded

I've been missing an alternative to Facebook that I can use for non-anonymous planning of events and communication in hobby groups etc. and I had never heard of any of the "Facebook-type" federated stuff before!

Now I just need to convince a bunch of people that this is viable to use without being the annoying guy...

The point is exactly that they're trying. Despite the parade being attacked, the democratically elected government, and the police as an institution are supporting them. That is the essence of working towards freedom of expression and progress: The fact that the people in the parade are permitted by the government to express themselves, and protected by the government when they do so, even if popular opinion may be against them.

I absolutely agree that newspapers shouldn't be allowed to label someone as a criminal before they have been sentenced. My point is that there's a difference between reporting indisputable facts about an event, and reporting that those facts make someone a criminal.

Reporting that "Video shows person X shooting person Y". Is different from reporting "Person X committed murder by shooting person Y", because in the second case you are reporting that they committed a crime, when they may be acquitted of murder in court for any number of reasons. Reporting that "Person X allegedly shot and killed person Y according to this video" makes it seem like there's any doubt about whether that happened.

I see the point, but still think it's a misuse of the word "alleged". There is no doubt here that the teacher was strangling the kid: That part is on video, and is true whether or not they're convicted of a crime for it. Whether the strangling was a crime, or whether there were mediating circumstances that make it not a crime is what remains to be determined.

I just think we should be able to separate between "person allegedly committed a crime", which needs to be proven in court, or "person did XYZ and there is video evidence and multiple independent eyewitnesses accounts of it", which shouldn't need to be proven in court.

Exactly! I mean.. some reptiles eat eggs, so we could be talking about something that happened before our ancestors had developed the concept of an ass. I don't think it's far-fetched to think that eating eggs may be as old a concept as eggs themselves. In that case, the first egg-eaters evolved alongside the first egg-layers, and were eating proto-eggs before even the modern egg existed.

Imagine if zebras started evolving very tough placentas over time, and the foals started lying around in them for a couple days before popping out: Lions would keep eating newborn zebras, and no single lion generation would notice that they were slightly different from 1000 years prior. Give that development a million years or whatever and you now have egg-laying zebras and egg-eating lions!

I would go even further: Our primitive ancestors likely descended from proto-humans that descended from primates that were already foraging eggs. Some modern apes and other mammals eat eggs as well, we've likely been eating eggs since hundreds of thousands of years before the first human evolved.

In a sense, that line of though is interesting: When we think of "observing other animals eating something, and then deciding to eat it", we're almost implicitly forgetting that we are descendants of exactly those types of animals, that "just know" what is safe to eat, and that some of the knowledge we have about food is potentially passed down from even before the first primates evolved.

I have to admit: If you (semi-)regularly use floating point comparisons in programming, I don't know why you would ever expect 0.1 + 0.2 == 0.3 to return true. It's common practice to check abs(a - b) < tol, where tol is some small number, to the point that common unit-testing libraries have built-in methods like assertEqual(a, b, tol) specifically for checking whether floats are "equal".

Possibly a poor translation from my side: I'm referring to the "head office" of the university, i.e. the group of people under the direct leadership of the principal, who have the highest administrative authority at the university.

A professor at my university tried that, but the students quite quickly made a huge fuss, got the principals office involved, and the universities lawyers informed said professor that what she was doing was illegal, and that she should stop before she got any more trouble. She stopped.

Drake is fucked, because Kendrick has already dropped the Mr. Morale album, where he raps about his own shortcomings and relationship issues and how he's worked to fix them. Whatever Drake says about him, it's something he's already been open about working to fix.

Drake on the other hand is just dumbly denying that he's done stuff everyone can see that he's done, or just not addressing what Kendrick is saying at all.

Long range artillery has pretty hard limits, and once you approach the 100km range, time to target becomes a real issue, even for missiles that can be shot down.

Modern anti-air hat a range of several hundred km, and has been combat tested. More short-range systems (< 50 km) are in use (with huge success) every day in Ukraine. Of course bombers have also improved, but I wouldn't put money on the bombers having improved relative to the AA.

Ps. I'm not the person downvoting you, I think you make a decent point, I just disagree :)

I specified "a reasonable distance from shore" because an important part of the point of a carrier is exactly that it can stay easily 100 km from shore and still strike far inland. If a carrier is in range of shore-based torpedoes, they've likely messed up long ago.

As for bombers: They're historically the major threat to carriers, but I don't see any modern developments that make modern bombers any more of a threat to modern carriers than WW2 era bombers were to WW2 era carriers.