Then the half eclipse would be wrong, 50% eclipse wouldn’t be a straight line across the diameter. An eclipse is two circles intersecting, not shadow sweeping across a sphere.

Yup the flour is very likely to contain e coli. The eggs are still a risk with salmonella but the e coli is a much greater and more potent risk

Well… were not on the other side of this yet. Were still in the sort of early 1930s Germany era where the real problems people face haven’t gotten all that much better, and the fascists have made many decently successful smaller attempts at power but haven’t quite succeeded in that big push for power. like the stuff that is planned in project 2025.

deleted by creator

I don’t think fascism is capable of producing competent longterm leadership. Like the ideology preselects for loyalty above all, it’s rabidly anti-intellectual and scorns anyone perceived as being an intellectual elitist. It’s purely emotion driven and requires ever escalating emotional rhetoric to keep the based angry at external all-powerfully weak enemies (lazy mexicans stealing your jobs, sneaky jewish bankers crashed the entire economy, thuggish high school dropout gangbangers in the inner city are criminal masterminds responsible for all the drugs flowing through rural communities who would overrun everything if they were smart enough to unify, take your pick of contradictory scapegoat.)

That’s not to say incompetence means harmlessness, there’s a lot of blood that has been spilled throughout history due to incompetence.

Thanks! I still def recommend checking out the video. It’s a really fascinating topic.

Sort of, basically because mercury has the small orbit it spends the most time closer on average to any other planet. The CGP Grey video someone else posted is a really good explanation as to what’s going on.

Delaware checking I’m we basically had the TI 83 or TI-84

Yup that’s it

Oh apologies with a missed detail. The battery+switch and the lightbulb are 1 meter apart and are connected by a wire that is 1 lightyear long.

Assuming that electricity is only carried inside the wire (like our conventional understanding and models expect), yes it does break the speed of light but electricity doesn’t actually travel inside the wire but in the electric field around the wire, which gives the wire near the battery to affect the wire near the light and create a tiny voltage difference, thereby nearly instantly lighting the lightbulb that reaches max brightness on any voltage differential.

So conventional models describe electricity as flowing through the wires at the speed of light, (this model is extremely useful but doesn’t accurately describe the underlying mechanism) so it makes sense that it would take 16 years in the aphla centauri example (8 years there and 8 years back) for the information that the switch is closed to reach the lightbulb, and that is what happens irl. The full voltage does take that much time to travel the distance BUT because electricity and moving electrons is more complicated and is carried by the electric fields, some of that electric field reaches across the gap and puts a tiny voltage across the lightbulb, which in his example immediately turns on to full brightness at any voltage difference.

Yeah, basically Derek didn’t unpack his definitions very well at the beginning and led to a lot of confusion and incorrect assumptions by others, but at least 3 other channels did replicate the experiment and did find the slight voltage jump across the wires faster than the full voltage along the wire.

Not exactly misinfo but definitely based on some slightly less than honest setups.

Like the speed of electricity video. He was technically correct that his hypothetical instant lighting lightbulb would light up when the first tiny bit of current crosses the gap using EM waves, but it didn’t quite account for our general understanding of lightbulbs work and it wasn’t adequately explained that the lightbulb didn’t act like a real lightbulb, unlike the hyperreality of the rest of the setup in the hypothetical experiment.

Exactly this. People often use “female” because it’s a dehumanizing word.

Hey if that’s your jam go for it, personally I’d like to live in a world where someone can elect to do that sort of work and not have to worry and stress about housing, food, bills etc or take on that kind of work despite hating it in order to put food on the table.

If needing to pay for basic necessities weren’t a factor in people getting jobs, I highly doubt the majority of people would work the kinds of jobs of today. I don’t know a single person who is excited to go into their retail job and deal with shitty customers all day or sit in a bland cubicle all day making spreadsheets that nobody really cares about.

I know more people who would much rather devote their time to learning and playing instruments, or making something with their own hands, or writing stories, or spending time raising their families.

Like the cop has sniper optics scanning each car for your out of state plate.

Oh you mean like the license plate scanners they have mounted in their cruisers just sitting and scanning license plates passing by all day?

Some advice I got about how to deal with people who like to use euphemisms and bad faith argument to hide their racism/sexism/XYZ-phobia (but it works even when it’s not the xenophobia stuff) is to just play dumb. Be like Socrates and keep poking at their underlying arguments and assumptions.

An uncle of mine will talk about “people wearing hoodies” as a euphemism for “thuggish black people” and I’ll just play dumb, and ask stuff like “I wear hoddies, does that make me a criminal?” or “What is it about hoddies that makes people criminals?” “It’s a piece of cotton, I don’t get what it is about hoodies that makes someone a criminal” And just keep asking dumb questions, they’ll get to a point that they’ll either say the quiet part out loud or just won’t say their veiled racist stuff around you.

It’s a bit of initial work but after a while people leave you alone because it’s just a pain in the ass trying to argue with you.

Bad argument techniques are not necessarily bad faith arguments.

For example saying “broccoli is bad because I don’t like it” isn’t necessarily bad faith, it’s just poorly reasoned and doesn’t consider other perspectives and ideas. If the arguer is willing to listen to other perspectives and ideas and is willing to revise their statement to better reflect reality to something like “broccoli is not for me, because I don’t like broccoli but other people do.”

Bad faith argumentation doesn’t try to consider other ideas and perspectives and will do everything they can to avoid conceding anything to the opposing arguments, and will continue to adhere to the original despite evidence to the contrary.

Both can use bad argumentation, but good faith argumentation reflects a willingness to adapt to new information, and bad faith will only double down on their argument despite evidence to the contrary.

Sort of. If you’re doing burgers, you don’t usually need to pat it dry, but you also don’t salt it until just before you put it on the pan/grill. Salt still draws out moisture and changes the protein structure especially in ground beef.