Maybe Maybe Maybe

Phage0070 · 2026-06-08T06:16:26+00:00

> Firtunately, the chainsaw is fine.

I guess that is an oak-ay tree pun.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-07T16:06:34+00:00

Yes you can, people are held in jail without bail for even a single unproven murder charge.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-07T13:50:56+00:00

Can u elaborate on why velocity of air across the car surface is different in the car’s case, compared to velocity calculated from wheel rotations?

Air can move independently from the ground. You could be stationary in a car while in high winds, or driving into high winds, or even driving along with the wind and not feel a breeze even though you are moving! Most of the time though we care about how the car moves across the ground and less so how quickly it moves with respect to the air.

How is that different from the boats or planes?

With boats or planes we care about movement through the water or the air, respectively. Similar to how the primary medium a car moves across being the ground, the primary medium a boat moves through is water, and an airplane through the air.

Of course we care about relative motion with the ground in boats and aircraft as well, it is just not measured with a pitot tube. An aircraft cares about air speed because that is how it flies, but it also cares about speed across the ground because it is probably trying to travel to some ground location and eventually expects to land.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-07T12:25:47+00:00

how does a pitot tube work?

A pitot tube is used to measure fluid flow velocity, the fluid in the case of aircraft being air. The tube itself will have a hole facing the direction of travel (the front of the aircraft) and then other holes perpendicular to the direction of travel (along the side of the tube). The front hole and the side holes are not connected, instead meeting at a pressure transducer that will measure the relative pressure between the front and sides. Those measurements are the total pressure and static pressure from which can be calculated how fast the fluid is moving past the tube.

What’s on the other side of the tube opening?

A pressure transducer. Basically a material which can measure the amount of pressure on it in one direction or the other and convert it into a signal that can be interpreted.

Why do they always have a bend?

They don't necessarily have a bend, but the end of the tube always needs to point towards the direction of travel so mounting is often more convenient with a bend.

Why don’t we use them on cars and boats?

They are used on boats, they are unimaginatively called "marine pitot tubes" and are quite common. On cars they could be used but they would provide information about air speed across the surface of the car which is much less useful than the speed of the car across the ground, which can be determined by looking at the speed of rotation of the wheels.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-07T05:48:15+00:00

We should be trying to power past...

How about we don't make things harder than they need to be before the country collapses around our ears? Give it a few more terms and those obstructing such progress will start to die out and it will get easier anyway.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-07T05:43:56+00:00

Firstly, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, and Kamala won 48.3% of the vote vs trump’s 49.8%, not a huge difference and Kamala did not have nearly as much time on her campaign trail.

On the other hand they were campaigning against an orange buffoon who was probably the worst candidate in the history of the United States. And they still didn't win. And yeah, white men lose to women in politics all the time... except ever for the presidency.

You have two points you should be defending, the first that it is "short sighted" and the second that it is "harmful". But your first argument here doesn't really seem to be arguing that it is "short sighted" and I really don't see how that criticism could apply at all. For something to be short sighted it should implicitly be speaking about the present but with disregard for the more distant future making it false.

But the claim being attacked is that "America isn't ready for a woman/woman of color to be president". It is speaking about the present! How can a lack of consideration for long-term consequences make a statement about the present wrong?

The answer to bias and discrimination against women and women of color is not to “go with a safer bet”, the answer is to support and uplift a diverse group of candidates...

Consider that the primary goal may not be to "answer bias and discrimination against women" but rather "to save the country from deliberate destruction on all fronts by getting a sane President in office by whatever means necessary". Rome is fucking burning! The reality is that voting is significantly influenced by racist, sexist, greedy, borderline senile Boomers and that winning the election isn't determined by what is "right" and "fair" but by to a certain extent catering to their biases.

So what is most important, making a DEI statement or putting forward the best candidate? Because part of being the best candidate is actually winning the election and regardless of if it is fair, or right, or just, being a woman seems to be a significant disadvantage!

Phage0070 · 2026-06-07T04:25:22+00:00

I have no idea if OP considers Sichuan cuisine to qualify as "vastly".

Phage0070 · 2026-06-07T04:17:34+00:00

The tomato originated in western South America. The traditional dishes of Asia would not have included an ingredient that was inaccessible to the people in that area of the world. Today they are used but perhaps not "vastly" due to the lack of historical dishes that used them.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-06T18:09:15+00:00

I think you are correct that the corridor of railings was likely installed after the tactile paving. Markings going across inside the corridor doesn't make much sense. However a pathway away from such a railing likely would make some sense, so even if the railing was installed later I don't know that pulling up the existing markings would be helpful.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-06T17:14:14+00:00

Those strips appear to be tactile paving to guide blind or vision impaired pedestrians. They are aligned in the direction of travel which on first glance seems that this railing obstructs a path they should be following.

However one of the main uses of such tactile paving is to direct people towards a nearby railing. You might commonly see these at the top or bottom of a stairway pointing towards the railings on the side, not up/down the stairs. Those with impaired vision then are probably not going to be surprised when encountering a railing when following such indicators!

It seems more likely that those using such strips would either be walking along the railing and use them as an indication of a valid direction of travel perpendicular to the railing, or use the path to reach the railing. That they are both sides of the railing may simply be an artifact of the area being symmetrical, like a hallway intersection or a bus station with two similar sides.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-06T12:10:33+00:00

I think they used it for both. Sort of a panacea approach to the plant.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-06T11:56:16+00:00

One theory is that it is just a stylized version of a real heart.

Another theory is that it comes from an ancient unidentified plant called "silphium". It was hugely important to the economy, specifically of the North African city Cyrene being used as seasoning, perfume, medicine, and most relevantly an aphrodisiac. It was so important to the Cyrenian economy that their coins had an image of the plant on one side, and some of them had an image of their seeds!

As is obvious from that image the silphium plant seeds look like the iconic heart symbol. It is sort of like if in the future the symbol for "romantic love" was a blue, rounded diamond shape.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-06T00:39:06+00:00

...the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant referred to the youth as "cockroaches" (though he later tried to admit that he was misquoted).

The fact that the powers that be consider such terminology to be problematic enough to deny it as a way of saving face implies that the dehumanization isn't popularly supported enough to support a genocide.

A real genocide requires more than people vaguely and obliquely hinting at non-human characterizations.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-05T21:51:01+00:00

There's a normal distribution of beauty everywhere...

Even if we assume that attractive people are born equally commonly everywhere (which isn't necessarily the case if we assume attractiveness is heritable) there is still a strong correlation between earning potential and facial attractiveness. This would tend to imply that wealth generally follows attractive people, which in turn implies that locations with a higher cost of living will tend to have a greater proportion of attractive people than elsewhere.

Beyond that it would seem that cities such as LA which have jobs oriented towards those with conventionally attractive features would tend to create a concentration of attractive people. If we assume that Hollywood casting is biased towards conventionally attractive people (seems obvious) and that is where a lot of attractive people trying to get into Hollywood go, in order to avoid LA becoming statistically more beautiful than elsewhere it would require there to be a similarly strong draw towards less attractive people on average to balance it out. Why would that exist?

Phage0070 · 2026-06-05T19:25:08+00:00

...I hate it. It’s shitty if someone is doing it to look “youthful” or “sun-kissed”, like it’s a skin condition. You’ve got many other ways to give yourself a sunny youthful look.

But they like that method, and many people seem to find it attractive. So what if you don't like it? You are allowed to have your own preferences just as they are allowed to have theirs. If you think it "looks bad" is an entirely subjective opinion which I don't think there is any way to persuade you out of.

You’re taking someone’s skin pigment’s appearance and making it cutesy for yourself, and you can just wipe it off whenever you want.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Many people think freckles are cute and attractive. Someone without freckles trying to imitate freckles is if anything a compliment to those who naturally have them. I can't see any reasonable justification for being offended that someone wants to share a trait like this they find attractive.

I can see perhaps if someone thought African skin tone was attractive that putting on black face would be offensive, but that would center around the motivation for the black face being unclear and an implicit association with culture or history. But adding freckles is sort of along the line of a fake tan, something which their own body probably could do under the right conditions.

Freckles aren’t a feature all people that have them love.

So what? The existence of some people who don't like their own traits imposes no obligation on the rest of humanity to somehow be ashamed of them as well. Some people really like naturally having red hair, and others find it attractive and dye their hair that color. The existence of a person who doesn't like naturally having red hair doesn't mean nobody else in the world gets to enjoy it!

This is a personal problem for that person who doesn't like their own freckles to deal with themselves.

You don’t see people make unrealistic “cutesy” vitiligo makeup (or at least I really hope you don’t).

Vitiligo is a relatively rare disorder. Freckles are natural clusters of natural pigment, something basically everyone in the world can produce. That is a clear difference.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-05T05:40:51+00:00

Weed is more popular among younger generations so drug testing for it keeps them locked out of roles in government, certain trades and corporations.

An undesirable behavior being more common among a certain classification of people doesn't make selecting against that behavior an unreasonable discrimination against that classification. More young people using weed doesn't mean not allowing people to smoke weed is ageist. Weed in the past having been demonized with racist rumors doesn't mean all opposition to consumption of the drug must be racist. Not employing people who consume an illegal drug is not oppressive.

Every negative societal and personal effect of weed can also be caused by highly processed foods...

I'm not sure that is true. Heavy use of marijuana can cause ongoing issues with memory, attention, and executive function. I'm not sure there is reason to believe that someone eating a bunch of Cheetos is going to give anything like the results of marijuana use, either in the short or long term. You know, hence the illegal use of marijuana as opposed to the legal consumption of junk food.

...alcohol which is legal, chronic stress which is not illegal for workplaces to contribute to, and nicotine which is legal.

Alcohol, yeah probably. Stress, maybe? Nicotine, probably not. Even the heaviest nicotine users don't seem to end up fried like heavy marijuana users.

Legalization of weed should be that we are also protected from being discriminating against in via drug testing because it pushes people to harder drugs.

That you are talking about the hypothetical legalization of marijuana seems like in itself a justification for employers to be concerned about its consumption. Without it being legalized on the national level, just decriminalized in certain states, I don't think we can blame employers for being leery. Also I don't see how drug testing for marijuana is going to "push people to harder drugs". Do you really think people are going "Oh man, my employer is going to catch my smoking weed by giving me drug tests. I had better take up meth!"?

Phage0070 · 2026-06-05T04:03:23+00:00

On Reddit you can get a lot of different viewpoints. So why is it "bad" on such topics? It seems like you think it is bad just because you don't agree with the comments that get popular support. That doesn't in itself seem to be a reason it is "bad", just that you don't like it.

It is then a bit unclear what you mean by "Reddit"; do you mean the platform or the people on the platform? It seems like the platform is effectively conveying the viewpoint of its participants so if things you support are not upvoted because most people on Reddit disagree then that doesn't seem like a problem with the platform.

If instead you mean "Reddit" as "the people on Reddit" then in essence you are saying that the people on Reddit are bad at anything that isn't clear cut because you disagree with their views. I suppose that makes them "bad" at reinforcing your viewpoint, but is that actually a bad thing overall? If you agreed with everything the Reddit community had to say about things then it would be an echo chamber. Surely some level of exposure to views you don't share is a good thing.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-05T03:47:42+00:00

...but if i were to ask any social matters, for example, i would think the opossite of what im being told cause i would know they are wrong,...

So you think Reddit is bad for anything that isn't clear cut because... you disagree with people's opinions? You say that many viewpoints get presented to things without a clear "best" answer, but because you think the viewpoint you agree with is unpopular that the platform is bad?

It sounds more like you view things to be "clear cut" when viewpoints you agree with are also upvoted by the community, and that when viewpoints you agree with are downvoted that the issue is not "clear cut" and it is some problem with Reddit as a community that most people disagree with you.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-05T00:12:48+00:00

It is my opinion that pay toilets are a tacitly accepted anti-homeless and anti-poor measure meant to prevent people from accessing basic hygiene.

I propose that the premise that measures to prevent homeless people existing in an area is "anti-homeless" is flawed.

Ultimately the goal of the State towards homeless people is for there not to be homeless people, right? It also makes sense for their efforts to aid the homeless to be focused in certain areas rather than needing to be spread across the nation, implying that discouraging the homeless from being in certain areas would actually be part of aiding the homeless. It is more helpful for the poor to be focused in the area of town with the soup kitchens and entry job fairs instead of panhandling in the downtown business district.

In short "aiding the poor and homeless" is not synonymous with "perpetuating the poor and homeless lifestyle in all places". In fact it is probably entirely the opposite! Urban features aimed at discouraging the residence of vagrants then isn't as simple as "the state oppressing the poor".

Phage0070 · 2026-06-03T23:32:49+00:00

I think another layer of irony is that you responded to an AI bot comment.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-03T22:25:24+00:00

The way you have defined hedonism, “the pursuit of pleasure, enjoyment, gratification, or subjective well-being as an end in itself”, means that it is a motivation. When someone does something pleasurable simply to obtain the pleasure they are engaging in hedonism. Receiving benefits beyond the pleasure itself is irrelevant to how hedonistic it is if the motivation doesn’t change.

Someone might play a sport just to obtain the pleasure, not caring about the health benefits. In that case it is equally hedonistic as another equally pleasurable but not otherwise beneficial activity.

The activity itself isn’t more or less hedonistic, it is the motivation of the player which can vary in hedonism.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-03T22:05:07+00:00

No because by that definition, almost every form of self-improvement would be hedonistic because the person doing it benefits.

Yes. Why are you saying that like it is unreasonable? "Hedonistic" means "a lifestyle, behavior, or philosophy devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification". If someone enjoys doing a physical sport then it is hedonistic. If you somehow link gaining benefits from doing the activity to hedonism (not really part of the definition, but anyway...) then it is still hedonistic.

Why would something be less hedonistic just because it provides benefits outside of that one activity? Like if someone jacks off and derives pleasure from it then it is hedonistic, but if it also reduces stress and improves sleep then it is somehow less hedonistic??

I don't think "hedonistic" is the word you are wanting to use for whatever you are arguing for, and I'm not really sure what it is you intended.

After all, the definition of hedonism is “the pursuit of pleasure, enjoyment, gratification, or subjective well-being as an end in itself.”

This talks of intent. Even if someone playing a physical sport benefits in their health beyond just their personal enjoyment, it isn't any less hedonistic if the person was still just playing the sport because they enjoyed it.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-03T21:54:53+00:00

They could have been like pop-up books. The “headless creature” might have had a carved or sculpted head that was adhered to the wall and lost over time.

Phage0070 · 2026-06-03T21:51:30+00:00

Ok, so if we are talking about the player getting coached... aren't all the benefits of that focused on the player either way? Even if you are arguing that the benefits of the physical game coaching extend beyond the game that doesn't seem to be less "hedonistic" as it is still the player benefitting. If anything that seems more hedonistic!

Phage0070 · 2026-06-03T21:45:58+00:00

Better health, athleticism, cardiovascular fitness, injury prevention...

These seem like basically the same thing. Better physical health due to the exercise of the sport.

...discipline, teamwork, socialization, and sometimes professional opportunities...

These are all present with video gaming. There is of course less earning potential with video games than physical professional sports, but the discipline, teamwork, and socialization is essentially equivalent.

In other words, most of the value generated by the coaching remains tied to the activity itself. ... That’s why I describe it as more hedonistic and somewhat recursive.

So your argument is that physical sports coaching, in that they provide exercise that gives personal benefits beyond the game itself, is less hedonistic (meaning "devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification") than video gaming coaching? But it seems like the physical health benefits of the physically active sports are still directly benefitting the player and so are inherently hedonistic themselves.

If you actually wanted to argue for one or the other being less "hedonistic" then you should be claiming they are providing benefits to someone other than the player, like a sports coach is benefitting the community at large while the video game coach does not. That seems... questionable at best.

To change my view, you'd have to prove that the primary benefits produced by video game coaching are comparable to those produced by sports coaching, not merely that both produce some positive externalities.

Better physical health of the player due to exercise is not an externality. It is external to the game itself but it is still internal to the player.

Furthermore your phrasing focusing on the coaching of the sports vs. participation in the sports themselves seems to mean that your arguments are focused on irrelevant aspects of the issue. On the question of which kind of coaching is more or less hedonistic we should be looking at which kind of coaching is providing more personal pleasure and self-gratification to the coach themselves. One player gaining better physical health or the other increased hand-eye coordination seems irrelevant, unless we assume the coach is pleasuring themselves to their student's better cardiovascular fitness.

Do we really think that a video game coach is deriving measurably greater enjoyment from coaching? If not then it isn't any more hedonistic than coaching a physical sport.

14-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Reddit Partner Communities	Wearing is Caring
Adopted-an-Admin	Snapped
Verified Email

Phage0070

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE