Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)L
Posts
0
Comments
716
Joined
3 yr. ago

For serious comments, my true audience is the unknown reader. For jokes, my audience is myself alone.

Lemmy dev suggestions: Remove all downvotes. User blocks should keep the blockee from seeing the blocker.

  • A lazy kate is used for spinning multiple yarns into one, but spool racks are used for anything that is on a spool. Spool racks in the textile industry almost certainly existed long before lazy kates did. The electronics was just an example that people were likely very familiar with.

    And downvoting comments like you're doing is just rude. It doesn't make your comments any more correct.

  • ??? Spools of yarn are still spools. I've seen similar racks for threads.

    Edit: And the way you aggressively use downvotes is just plain rude.

  • This is just a spool rack. Something like this is used in every electronics lab to hold wire and soldering wire.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • So a Pokémon expert would get this correct, even with zero pharmaceutical knowledge.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Reptile Wikipedia:

    In evolutionary taxonomy, reptiles are gathered together under the class Reptilia (/rɛpˈtɪliə/rep-TIL-ee-ə), which corresponds to common usage. Modern cladistic taxonomyregards that group as paraphyletic, since genetic and paleontological evidence has determined that crocodilians are more closely related to birds (class Aves), members of Dinosauria, than to other living reptiles, and thus birds are nested among reptiles from a phylogenetic perspective. Many cladistic systems therefore redefine Reptilia as a clade (monophyletic group) including birds, though the precise definition of this clade varies between authors.

  • Now we just need these laws worldwide.

  • I think “mediocre” in this context would be mediocre to most people.

    I think you cannot ask about something subjective without getting people's personal opinions. If you ask about an aspect of a mediocre thing, then you can expect at least some debate about what counts as mediocre, and probably none of the people's answers will be correct.

    For me, a "mediocre" movie would be something that I would only watch again if a friend wanted to watch it, but if it was just an option and I got to choose, I'd never choose it. But if it was just "on", I might not change the channel. Let's see, like The Rock directed by Michael Bay.

    And then there are "bad" movies that I wouldn't watch even if I had a friend who wanted to see it, like any other Michael Bay movie that I've seen. Armageddon had pretty good music, but it wasn't mediocre. It was bad.

  • I might have a strange definition of mediocre, but basically, I think that if I had seen the movie once, and then I decide it's worth watching again, then somehow it must not be mediocre. I've seen Spawn several times.

  • If Spawn counts as a mediocre movie with good music, then you'd think Flash Gordon would be in the same category. But I don't think either of those movies are mediocre.

  • I see what you're saying, that there are two cases. One where the ends is the goal of the person who used the means, and one where the ends is not the goal of the person who used the means. I only mentioned the latter in my comment.

    But from my perspective, if the stabber purely intended to uncover cancer, and for some reason they actually had the expertise and knowledge to know that that specific person had cancer, and this was somehow the only way to prove it, then the action itself is inherently altruistic. From my perspective, it wouldn't be less altruistic even if the person turned out not to have cancer. So, I don't think it would count as the ends justifying the means.

    If the same stabber, with the same expertise and knowledge, actually had multiple ways of achieving the ends, like they could have talked about it rather than stabbing, but they chose the stabbing route, then I think you can't say that the stabbing was justified, regardless of whether the cancer was discovered.

    There may be other cases worth digging into. I'm sure there are lots of examples I didn't think of, but I'd be surprised if they were convincing to me. The reason is that, my experience has taught me that good ends are most predictably the results of just and informed actions.

  • I'm not sure what that video said, exactly, but both water and dirt move because they are both affected by tidal forces.

    Tide is caused when an object, like Earth, is large enough to experience a difference in the effects of orbital gravity from one end to the other. The center of gravity of an object does not experience tidal forces.

    Since most of the Earth's surface is water, and the water is on top of the dirt, the water should be affected more by tidal forces than the dirt underneath it.

    The video may have been talking about how the dirt affected by tidal forces also pushes the water, causing a compounding effect or something.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Uhhh... Having a baby is one of the most selfish things a person can do. They're choosing not to foster or adopt. They're doing the exact worst thing they can do for the environment.

    And why are they doing it? Because they like kids, or because they want a family, or because they want someone to take care of them when they're old. All selfish reasons.

  • I think lots of people believe that the ends can justify the means.

    But to me, that expression means the same thing as, "Whatever causes a good outcome must not be bad." And I not only disagree with it, I don't even think it makes sense.

    I heard a story about a guy who was stabbed in a mugging and during surgery for the stabbing, found out that he had cancer, which saved his life.

    But nobody is going to go to the judge during the mugger's trial, and say that his decision to stab the guy was "justified," and so he should be released to stab again with his completely justified stabbing history.

    No, the things that are justifiable are those which are good and informed actions. You can't justify bad or ignorant actions simply because of luck.

  • Burn

    Jump
  • There is definitely an element of that in the movie, due to the naked man.

  • Indeed

    Jump
  • My super religious super MAGA aunt wants the apocalypse to come as soon as possible and she believes it will happen in her lifetime because she believes she's just that special. She's pretty old so the timeline she imagines is quite short.

    I've always thought there is the possibility that she supports Trump because she believes he's the antichrist, and the bible says the antichrist is a part of the end times.

  • Indeed

    Jump
  • One of the biggest WTF moments in my life was when a plague occurred during Donald Trump's first term, and I didn't hear any religious people saying it was a sign from God to permanently turn away from Trump, since a plague is the essential sign from God that he doesn't like what's going on.

    Maybe there were some religious people who said that, but I didn't hear them, and it wasn't mainstream.

    In retrospect, it's pretty obvious that they simply don't believe in their own religion, due to ignorance, misplaced trust, corruption, or something similar.

  • "And Charlie Kirk would have been sitting right here when he was shot in the fucking neck."

  • Nothing to hide

    This is a bad way to think about people exercising their rights.

    Taking the fifth doesn't mean you have something to hide. It simply means that you don't know if it could possibly incriminate you.

    I strongly suggest everybody in America watch this video which is mostly about not talking to police, but the same reasons apply to testimony.

    For example, sometimes even completely innocent seeming statements, such as your truthfully saying where you were, can be used to convict you of a crime that you didn't commit. You had "nothing to hide", but you should have exercised your rights anyways.

    Since you don't know ahead of time which statements may be incriminating, you have to be extremely prepared if you want to guarantee that you don't need to take the fifth in front of a place like the House Judiciary Committee, where you are answering questions from politicians who have agendas.