![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://feddit.uk/pictrs/image/628ede8e-54d9-4c64-8a37-9a98a20bb5c0.png)
Huh?
I mean… you are literally instead of discussing the politics of the UK, actively choosing to be antagonistic.
And antagonistic in a way that I have literally no idea what you’re even trying to say, beyond wildly thrashing into the void.
I exist or something probably
Huh?
I mean… you are literally instead of discussing the politics of the UK, actively choosing to be antagonistic.
And antagonistic in a way that I have literally no idea what you’re even trying to say, beyond wildly thrashing into the void.
Sounds like they were just hoping things would at least improve, which means not get actively worse nor remain strictly the same, but does not mean things become absolutely good and fixed. You’re the one putting “fundamental changes to how things are run” as their claim.
I found their comment quite helpful, and the content of the addition that labour may not do much better was also useful and fit in the framework they gave.
I don’t think the aggression was warranted or helpful, and only served to stagnate the discussion.
I think it’s just a typo. “…Whoever gets the[n] gives…”
The regulation appears to be based on the area of the plot, not the dimensions. By assigning explicitly annotated dimensions it can confuse the intended message more than using a goofy but useful analogy.
Interesting! Thank you.
Neat that the dorsal plane bends, I could see that disagreeing with the body orientation planes
Dorsal means towards the (anatomical) back, ventral means towards the ground. These are perpendicular to the dorsal plane, as frontwards is perpendicular to the frontal plane.
I’m unfamiliar with brain orientation so perhaps the tradition is a bit different!
It can be either the frontal or dorsal, however consider in zoology “dorsal fin”. Intuitively this is because the front of these animals doesn’t align with the frontal plane as it does in humans, but dorsal is a common alternative.
Because quadrupeds are oriented differently. This chart is accurate.
A green buildings designer might develop new environmentally friendly materials for construction projects,”
So instead of referencing the jobs that already exist, scientist, r&d, particularly materials scientists, or mentioning civil engineers, they made up an entirely new job and are shocked it doesn’t exist yet.
Corporate writers are incredibly out of touch.
Yeah I don’t believe most of these are real “big taboos” and will continue eating food the way it is most tasty to do, regardless, thanks.
Hot things glow, some chemical reactions glow, fire does both, mostly the latter especially for cooler fires.
“How to email in a stiff, cold, professional tone for the first two emails in a chain before the pretense is dropped and we email informally because there are more important things to do.”
Yes, all of that is obviously true between shirts, the question is about shirt color, which is almost entirely down to the pigments used in fabrication. In which case it is entirely due to the absorptivity, emissivity, reflectance, and opacity, of the pigment.
This isn’t an active area of debate, it’s an entirely empirical question or a hard modeling problem per shirt manufacturer. All of this is very solved science, and has become “an engineering problem”
The temperature of the shirt itself will have a majority of the impact on the heat transfer. Whether a given pigment is reflective in the ir is impossible to predict by eye, see below. Black shirts will warm you up more in general, though offer better protection against UV. You can however get special UV protective white colored shirts.
It depends on the absorptivity of the pigment at that given wavelength. Foil for example works because in ye infrared it is still reflective. Without an infrared camera and an infrared light it’s impossible to tell what the infrared absorptivity of a given shirt is by eye. The science articles are not giving the full picture.
If they have identical or close enough emissivity it is directly proportional to heat absorption, as given identical amounts of time in the sun and air flow, temperature will almost entirely depend in absorptivity, and emitted infrared is proportional to temperature^4.
Black bodies emit and absorb perfectly. These probably all have an emissivity that’s lower than a blackbody, and very close together, while absorptivity is related to the color of the shirt. So this test is actually fairly indicative.
That’s not ancap libertarianism nor effectively even mundane libertarianism, ultimately. In a practical sense that libertarianism is only opposed to strictly chattel slavery (at best! Get many libertarians behind closed doors they may not even go that far!), not things like debt slavery, wage slavery, company scrip, etc.
Because they ultimately don’t generally care about market freedom, they want the unrestricted power to be feudal lords of their polities.
Under the extremes of libertarianism the logic for why slavery would not happen isn’t that “it wouldn’t be allowed”, remember, they view a government system as bad, there’s not strictly a government to enforce a lack of slavery.
The extreme libertarian position is that the market will self regulate moral bads, so slavery would only be disallowed inasmuch as it was uneconomical to forcefully enslave people. This, under their reasoning, might be true because you’re under contract with a security company who keeps you from getting enslaved, among other services, and will actively go to corporate war to protect the sanctity of their contracts for fear of losing business in the future.
This is obviously a fantasy.
Libertarians generally have no qualms with slavery, not in a strict sense. Some libertarians certainly dislike it, but don’t have a strict philosophical backing for why it wouldn’t be allowed under true zero government systems.
Re: edit - you should actually read the article on what tone policing is in their conception and what is harmful about it, not all being called out for dickish replyguy behavior is tone policing. Frustration and aggression can be warranted, and is fine to express, but when all you’re doing is arguing with no cogent point (see: yelling into the void) and misinterpreting what someone is saying to the point of absurdity, aggression is being actively harmful to the discussion. That’s just being an ass for catharsis.
And again, the point was to point out that the person you’re responding to did not say what you claimed they did, and that the addition about labour was helpful. You can be as frustrated and aggressive as you want about that, but this whole discussion could’ve been in agreement, you both appear to agree with each other on the meat of the politics.