Xavienth

Of course, that would never change in the face of changing financial incentives. The world as it is is the world as it ought to be.

It is the quadratic formula. It already is the solution. The problem is any quadratic of the form ax²+bx+c=0

Have people never heard of the quiet game outside of an Australian cartoon?

I’m not clear on the details but I think some servers just hook up open loop to mains water for cooling.

Typo?

It’s a person by person thing and I suspect age plays a large part in feelings towards the term. In general I would say avoid the term unless it is requested.

So you think we should decentralize cities. Make it so you don’t need to go downtown for everything. Everything you need would be within 15 minutes of walking.

… A fifteen minute city perhaps.

The joke is on you. There are places where it already is easier than driving. What do such places have in common? There are so many people that having everyone drive is literally impossible to accommodate. You wouldn’t drive in Manhattan, Tokyo, or Seoul. It literally makes absolutely no sense to. In these cities, public transit is faster and way more convenient.

Smaller cities can replicate this effect by just… not outrageously favouring car infrastructure like they do today in North America. That doesn’t mean exclusively making driving worse, it means making public transit better at the same time with the freed up funding. And the freed up money is a lot, car infrastructure is super expensive. More routes with more stops at higher frequencies are made possible because of higher ridership, which increases convenience and makes it more likely you will get almost exactly from your origin to your destination.

But the American brain cannot conceive of this. “Communist transportation” fucking lmao. What if we made cities more liveable for humans, not for cars? Nah we can’t do that that’s communism.

If you make driving easier than transit, more people will drive who previously took transit. The reverse is also true. One of these situations is more desirable for myriad reasons.

As well, additional demand can be created by convenience. People will make trips they otherwise never would have if it’s easier to make them.

that’s what they want you to think

person whose entire account is promoting anti-communism “i hate how communism is being shoved down our throats”

I don’t think you could sustain an electric ship with solar panels, but I wonder if you could appreciably extend the range of this ship by adding solar panels.

Hell, if panels get cheap enough you could slap panels on top of all the battery modules. If they happen to be covered by something else, so be it.

Presumably an asexually reproducing species wouldn’t have a concept of gender since it arises from social classifications of sex, which they also would not have.

No but it sure was based

Miss, as opposed to Mister or Mx universe

Canada is wrong here. I think 1971 is referencing when our new constitution was prepared (which we didn’t have the right to implement or edit without British OK until 1982, but this is not celebrated). What is celebrated is Canada Day, 1 July 1867 but that celebrates Confederation into Canada under British rule, not Independence.

The partial eclipse is nothing special. Any given location gets one every few years or so.

Totality is the really neat and special thing, and it isn’t damaging to your eyes. (assuming you don’t pre-empt or overshoot the timing)

I mean, that is true when 100% blocked (totality)

I honestly can’t say I need resolution finer than Celsius for air temperature. So many other factors have such bigger effects on the perceived temperature (humidity, UV index, if the sun is shining, wind speed, etc) that a granularity of 1°F doesn’t make sense to me.

Pool temperature, on the other hand, yeah, 1°F or 0.5°C resolution is perceptible.

I don’t like the bridge example because the values were chosen (intentionally or not) conveniently for metric. Change it to every 4 feet or 1.3 metres and it’s no longer convenient in either system. There are better examples that demonstrate the superiority of metric.

For example, pool cleaner says 1 unit per 10,000 gal or 40,000 L.

21’ diameter, 3’ tall. So ~1000 ft³. Multiply by 1728/231 for gallons.

7 m diameter, 1 m tall. So ~40 m³. Multiply by 1000 for litres.

If you’re curious where 1728/231 comes from, there are 12³ (1728) in³ for a ft³. Then the gallon is defined as 231 in³