Yeah, but why bother? They can just turn off the body camera and shoot them in self defense. Same outcome and way less work.

Well, first off he wasn’t actually doing it after Celsius existed as a temperature scale. He made it a solid 18 years beforehand.
Second, there are some issues. Specifically, ice freezes at 0, but it doesn’t stop getting colder. So if you have a bit of ice, that doesn’t tell you the temperature, just that it’s below a threshold. Boiling is more convenient because liquid water can’t get above 100, but you do have to consider side pressure.
Fahrenheit used brine because as it freezes it forces salt out of the ice, making it more resistant to freezing. It self stabilizes its temperature, which is immensely handy.

None of the people designing their scales envisioned that using the basic reference points for common calibration would be a thing. Just like how we don’t calibrate them with brine, ice, steam or butts today, instead relying on how we marked down how electrical resistance changes as a function of temperature and then calibrated reference numbers to get the scale right.

It’s important to remember that the people in the past were largely not stupid, they simply hadn’t found out something we take for granted or they had priorities that we don’t.

Well that solidly changes the context. :)

It’s always been a dream of mine to down an aircraft with nothing but the horrors of my body, but everyone this far has managed to keep me away from dairy before we travel by plane. Spoilsports.

Why would they be horrified? You’re literally trusting them with your life, and if the tamales aren’t safe to eat then you having food poisoning is comparatively minor.

Or was it that you deprived the pilot of vital sustenance and morale boosting food needed to safely fly the plane?

It’s more complicated than that. It’s literally that sometimes two of the exact same item last for radically different times. It’s not a different design or manufacturing process, just an amorphous series of random factors lining up we call luck.

Mean time between failures is something they do actually measure in manufacturing, and you see interesting results like what hard drive manufacturers do to increase reliability: stress test the drives until the ones destined to fail early fail, and then sell the others.

There are things that can increase reliability, but a lot of the things that make the extreme outliers are just random, and no one documents what they were because they didn’t know it was going not have an effect, good or bad.

So you get in the bathtub with the bike pump and have the hose connected to a nozzle going out. You might need something stronger that shrinkwrap depending on what you get, but your bathtub is invariably able to handle 1 atmosphere of pressure.

Or, hear me out: a bathtub, some shrinkwrap, a bicycle pump and so e good old fashioned grit and determination.

I’m one of those people who knows we should standardize, bit also finds Fahrenheit just very convenient.

Like, when people say it’s 50 out, I immediately know that it’s going to feel about halfway between what I know 0 and 100 feel like. No one can even put up the pretext of doing that with Celsius, because not even the most pedantic person ever bothers to tell you when it’s 100 c out.

In seriousness though, the Fahrenheit scale isn’t non-sense, it’s just addressing things we don’t much need help with anymore. The zero point was chosen as a temperature you can create reliably without particularly sophisticated tools, and the range is so freezing and boiling are 180 degrees apart, putting them on the opposite sides of a dial.

Ugh, I’m one of those people who will defend imperial as not being irrational, just built ad-hoc for purposes that aren’t in alignment with modern ones and … No, that’s not what Fahrenheit is.

Fahrenheit was trying to make a temperature scale that was easy to recreate to ease the calibration of thermometers. Zero is a temperature that can be created in your garage with some ice, salt and water. 100 was his best, ultimately inaccurate, attempt to measure human body temperature, since it’s another easy calibration point, and from there water was defined as 32 and 212 so that they were 180 degrees apart, which would fit will on a temperature dial.
Not irrational, not a comfort scale, and not in alignment with current needs.

It’s pure coincidence that it kinda lines up with comfortable outdoor temperatures in the opinion of a good chunk of a population living in the northern part of the western hemisphere.

Are you asking me why I have an opinion on something? Because I do. You don’t need special reasons to make comments on a forum.

You aren’t listening. They depicted black people in the fashion that they depicted Greek people. They didn’t find them a weird novelty. The nature of ancient Greek prejudice wouldn’t have them depict people as Greek that they didn’t consider Greek. That intrinsically says something about the cultural integration, because that’s what the Greeks got weird over. If it was uncommon for them to be there they would have mentioned it because they mentioned all manner of uncommon things.
If they were a part of the society, and common enough that it wasn’t worth mentioning “…and then the one black guy in Athens showed up…”, then it seems clear to me that that’s “plenty”.

Nothing is being spun. I and others have given you evidence. You haven’t and are just making vacuous claims. Why do you have the opinion you do about the skin tone content of ancient Greece? Is it the enlightenment era paintings of Greek philosophers as white as could be? That the paint fell off the statues so now they’re just white marble? That all the black people in the pottery are “obviously” artistic choices, but the white people just … Are?
I’m sure you have a reason for thinking what you do, so what is it?
Neither a conversation nor a debate works by one person demanding evidence, denying it, and then refusing to elaborate In their beliefs.

Alright, demonstrate that the demographics are as you assert they are. I’ve shown you that they’re depicted in their arts and culture, both as they depicted outsiders and as they depicted themselves, as well as that they had unremarkable interactions with Ethiopia and beyond.
The link also details the history of using the racial composition of ancient Greece for all manner of racial weirdness that wasn’t representative of the Greeks themselves, up to and including Internet race weirdos who get bent out of shape about a black person being depicted in a movie set in the Mediterranean.

At this point you’ve been given plenty of evidence that there sufficient numbers of dark skinned people that it wasn’t remarkable. If you disagree that it would somehow have been remarkable, or that this isn’t a perfectly workable definition of “plenty”, then show some reason why beyond “well everyone knows”.
Hell, demonstrate that there were plenty of white people.

Define “plenty”.

The ancient Greeks didn’t care about skin tone in the modern sense, so there isn’t some racial census data like we have now.

https://lucas.leeds.ac.uk/article/skin-colour-in-ancient-greece/

They make trivial to find references to black people and depict them in the manner they depict themselves in art.
Because their division was not “Greek” and “black” but “Greek” and “not Greek”, they simply didn’t document it.
Aristotle describes the ideal skin tone as halfway between an Ethiopian and a woman.

Black people were quite literally unremarkable to them, so it’s pretty easy to argue that an ancient Greek wouldn’t find it odd to travel with a black person.

First, you’re assuming that most successful assassins are the unstable nutcases. It could just be that it’s more memorable when the motivation is “make jodi foster love me” than “stop an expansionist imperialist who’s destroying the lives of the common man”.

You’re also more likely to be a lone assassin if you don’t conform to social norms because social norms say not to kill people.

The most prolific assassins are just common soldiers whose names we don’t even record.

You’d be surprised how many people don’t. It’s a good fun fact, and I stand by supporting arms reduction regardless. :)

Math.
Our typical warhead (100kt) leaves a 200m radius crater if used to maximize the crater size. (Experiment in using nukes for mining and terrain shaping). We have less than 6000. 6000 π (0.2 km)² ~ 6000(0.125km² ) ~ 754km² < 2,586 km².

Nukes are dangerous because (other than the obvious) of what they do to the air, not the ground.

“fun” fact: we could never actually glass the earth, but with the success of disarmament work we’re at the point where, with perfect geometry, ideal yields, and a generous definition of “glass” the biggest country we could do that to is Luxembourg.

The moral of the story: strategic arms reduction treaties work, they’re just very slow.

You may be conflating the quakers with a different religious group.
While still a religious group, the quakers are largely one of the most accepting. They were initially given trouble by the Dutch. Their numbers have never really been high enough to have the type of social sway that you’re thinking.

Maybe you’re thinking the puritans or pilgrims? They’re the ones who kinda took over. Shame, inherent sin and all that.
The quakers are the pacifist abolitionists who think church should be a group of people quietly thinking in someone’s home until someone feels moved to share an idea.

While it would be better if our country was less religiously locked in, I’m pretty sure if it was the quakers that rose to prevalence we’d be way better off, even if only from the “not my job to enforce your morality” part.

Conservatives seem to oscillate between isolationism and aggressive intervention. They’re both from the stance of American primacy, either using our military for our benefit and to enforce our wishes or saying the world has nothing to offer us we need and that we’re better off not extending effort or energy on the rest of the world.

Currently our conservatives are swinging towards isolationism, which is why the anti immigration rhetoric and pulling out of international organizations was very popular. That’s not compatible with a plan to forcibly annex another country.

So for the first part, I don’t disagree at all. I just don’t think the logistics or theoretical necessity is a bearing on the symbolic-ness of it. Same for the effectiveness of it. Even if it changed literally nothing and no one would ever know I still wouldn’t shake hands with someone I considered evil.

I don’t see defining a subset of what you consider evil, like dissemination of hate speech, to be a downside.

There’s a lot of complex questions around a platform curating ideological content which could possibly make them loose certain platform protections. Right now most platforms are roughly content neutral because it allows them to be viewed as platforms, rather than publishers. This is more a response to the claim that there’s no reason for them not to remove ice. It may or may not be compelling, but it’s a real reason.

As for the use of the word “service”, sometimes my hands type slower than my brain thinks. My intent was to convey “those who develop and control the mastodon license”. Hopefully my original statement makes more sense in that context.
Those are the people providing the printing press schematic analog. Obviously an idea can’t support an ideology in that sense.

I’m not of the opinion either supports them in a way that’s worth getting angry over.
We also aren’t talking about being angry at ISPs for being willing to deliver packets to and from ice or Nazis, or any of the other entities that do less then the most they could possibly do to distance themselves.

Says the fact that it’s come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren’t used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been “in progress” for years.
The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it’s not compatible.

Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.