CheezyWeezle

That would violate the Treaty of Versailles

If see a nazi sitting at a table and 10 people are at the table talking to them, you have a table with 11 nazis.

There is no tolerance for intolerance.

I think it would be possible to reach this conclusion. Using shorter surveys, like Google opinion surveys or something, asking people if they recognize 2-3 logos at a time, run a few hundred of those surveys over a few years and you could categorize each logo based on % of participants who recognized, anything over like 66% could be considered “generally recognizable” and then count how many generally recognizable logos you had.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-saw-flying-lotus-in-a-grocery-store-copypasta

Then what about dry ice? That’s frozen carbon dioxide, so it is waterless ice. It is called dry because it lacks any water. Is water ice more or less wet than dry ice?

My parents and brother just moved from Oregon to Florida… like wtf. At least they have something there for them, uncles who own houses and business there giving them a place to stay and a steady job there. My brother was unemployed and looking to move anyway, but Florida? I’m just hoping they treat it as a stepping stone to getting back on their feet and then move to like Georgia or somewhere else nearby

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Besides, that isn’t even an appeal to tradition, because they aren’t arguing that something is correct because it is traditional, but rather specifying that the tradition is de facto practiced and accepted.

I mean that would hardly hold up to a challenge fir inadequate consideration. The value of all intellectual property in perpetuity is easily worth far more than access to the reddit website.

Apple pies aren’t bread per the FDA definition of “bread”, see here:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=136&showFR=1

These places would need to start producing full loaves to meet that definiton

lmao I’m guessing someone who doesn’t speak Spanish was told “we are out of ice, make a sign that says ‘No ice, no hielo, thanks, management’ and put it on the soda machine” and they just rolled with it phonetically

I got something stupid like a 96 on the ASVAB and I just told the first air force guy I smoked a lot of weed and I never heard from any military again lmao

It was tempting when they offered me to go right into a program to become a satellite operator starting off making $125k/year immediately after boot camp… but I don’t regret not taking that offer. Who knows what would have actually materialized, anyways. Probably would have been 6 years deep dreaming of hopefully seeing 6 figures one day while I end up managing logistics or something.

I never said this was a bad value, but I think we all know that these prices will not remain. They will increase because people will pay it once they are locked in. And if someone buys a used car, they have to pay that subscription to get these features, ensuring the manufacturer gets a slice from used sales. I can understand the cost, but it sets a dangerous precedent. It should be one time fee that grants the VIN access to the severs permanently. What would be really nice is if we had legislation that requires companies with a certain amount of revenue to maintain services for older products so they can’t just pull the plug later anyways.

I can understand some of these features requiring a $5/month subscription. Anything more than that is absolutely insane. With roadside assistance (depending on what that actually entails) I could see that sevice being bumped to $15-$20 a month,

Whenever I see a checkbox or something that just says “Check here to confirm you accept our privacy policy” I think it’s funny because all I am legally agreeing to are the words actually in front of me. Sure, I agree with the standalone words “our privacy policy”. I’m not sure what that does for you, but i guess “our privacy policy” is an acceptable string of words.

No? It’s literally not a thing on any android. I just pretty extensively looked for any evidence of this online and I can only see people misunderstanding the feature of removing permissions for unused apps. One of the permissions apps are granted is storage, and that permission can get revoked if that feature is turned on. This does not delete stored data (it does not remove data the app has already written) but removes the apps ability to read or write to storage further, and can cause any temporary storage like cache to get erased. This will cause your accounts to get signed out and could potentially lead to data loss, but not because the operating system is actively and purposefully erasing data.

I’m honestly not sure what they are talking about, I’m on Android 14 on my s23 and that isn’t a feature, nor has it ever been on any android phone I’ve ever had or seen. There is an option to remove permissions for apps that have not been used, but not to delete all storage for an app after an amount of time.

Um, what party do you think Bernie is a member of? He is pretty famously an independent…

Kind of. With hoisting, the compiler/interpreter will find variable declarations and execute them before executing the rest of the code. Hoisting leaves the variables as undefined until the code assigning the value to the variable is executed. Hoisting does not initialize the variables.

For example:

console.log(foo);
var foo;
//Expected output: console logs ‘null’

foo = ‘bar’;
console.log(foo);
var foo;
//Expected output: console logs ‘bar’

console.log(foo === undefined);
var foo;
//Expected output: console logs ‘true’

This means you can essentially write your code with variable declarations at the end, but it will still be executed as though the declarations were at the beginning. Your initializations and value assignments will still be executed as normal.

This is a feature that you should probably avoid because I honestly cannot think of any good use case for it that won’t end up causing confusion, but it is important to understand that every variable within your scope will be declared at the beginning of execution regardless of where it is written within your code.

Lmao you are the one who is actually tangibly misunderstanding the article. It clearly states that temperature RELATES to all forms of energy, which is true, but temperature is not directly affected by potential energy. Potential energy can, for example, raise the boiling point of a substance, but it does not actually change the temperature directly.

Since you clearly need a refresher on the fundamentals of heat and temperature:

https://www.houstonisd.org/cms/lib2/TX01001591/Centricity/Domain/5364/Thermal Energy.pdf

Maybe you should go read the article and actually read my comment. The article literally agrees with everything I said within the first few paragraphs. Negative temperatures do not and cannot exist under the classical definition, but the overall state of a system can reach a configuration that behaves like a negative temperature would, yet this is achieved by raising the temperature above what would tend towards infinity. Once again, it can be useful to represent certain configurations of systems of matter as a negative temperature with added context, and that’s why negative temperatures are a thing in science. It’s also why there are things like the summation of all natural numbers (1+2+3+4+…) being equal to -1/12. If you actually add up the natural numbers you get infinity, but ignoring that can yield useful results.

You are also absolutely wrong about temperature being dependent on all energy. Temperature is literally defined as the measurement of kinetic energy in a system. Are you actually suggesting that if I put an apple on an elevator, it’s temperature is going to be increased when I send it up? Or that if I inject that apple with cold diesel fuel it will heat up? Those things would increase the energy of the apple, but not increase the kinetic energy and therefore the temperature does not rise.