In other countries, not only would the voter suppression be illegal, but racial hate speech would also land this fucker in jail.

Our of curiosity, and because I couldn’t immediately find anything. Is MoveOn actively trying to change the voting system itself?

Memes on the internet have taught me angering the swifties is not a good idea

So, if you plan an arson as a protest, is that 8 years or 18 years?

Eating your offspring seems terribly energy inefficient

A video which puts all the arguments better than I ever could: https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo

But the notion you can only have high clearance by making your hood so massive to the point you can’t see your child as you run them over in your own driveway, doesn’t make sense.

I’d strongly encourage you to give the video a go.

These trucks are now infesting my streets to (Australia) to a lesser degree. It’s an arms race that really needs to be stopped. I hope you consider some of the points made in the video.

You’re right. Literally unplayable

Honestly, good on you so much for sharing. The fact you’re not ashamed and willing to share could save someone from the same attack, and as others have pointed out, even the most security minded of us can have lapses in judgement.

I’m really glad you weren’t screwed in the end.

Hey American modern pick up truck heads. Notice how normal the bonnet is? Notice how you can SEE enough to not run people over? This is a true utility vehicle. Look how massive this bad boy is without being a death machine 👍

Yikes 😬

Bloody English spelling… There’s a reason spelling bees don’t exist in some other languages.

We have a competition for spelling because English spelling is so bad at its job.

What fucking year is it in these people’s minds? 1600?

Next year will likely explode.

There are those of us who think windows 10 is passable, have used it for many years, and were never planning on switching to Linux because we’re normies.

Windows 11 changes that, and when security updates for Win10 end in 2025, I’m switching to Linux.

I am always neutral on this sort of thing (i.e. I believe in democracy, and despite what people will have you believe, Taiwan is not a monolith of opinion of the one China / reunification / independence question)

But this is fucking hilarious

Well, you must have a great palette haha.

If you randomly give me one of the two: no idea.

Back to back, sure I could tell, else, it’s cola.

At risk of being stuck-up: What, and Coca-Cola is not too sweet? Cola is sugar water with a bit of flavour.

I would say they only become distinguishable if you actually like cola, and drink I enough to be able to distinguis. Like all things taste, if you aren’t exposed to it often, you can’t tell the difference.

I’d bet you GF just rarely drank either coke or Pepsi.

How the fuck is sick leave not protected. Y’all Americans need to be rioting over that shit. That’s wild

(Pressure) * (volume) = (# moles) * (gas constant) * (temperature)

The ideal gas law.

In another thread I admit I didn’t explain my position here well enough. I would only not explain this equation given sufficient context (e.g. I’ve shown all those variables in a table, and my intended audience is people familiar with basic chemistry, which I’d expect would be everyone reading the report for this particular example, since this is high school chemistry, and the topic of all reports I work on is chemical engineering.)

People can read the conclusions if they’re not familiar with chemistry, and for the detail, they’re not my intended audience anyway.

Generally I still hold the position that you should define variables as much as possible, unless it’s overly cumbersome, given your intended audience would clearly understand anyway.

In context this simple equation is obvious even if you change the symbols, as long as there is sufficient context to draw from.

No worries friend, no hard feelings and appreciate the engagement!

Yeah, agree it is a bit wishy washy in terms of gauging how much explanation to include ¯_(ツ)_/¯

I suppose (in my opinion) the mindset should be: include as much explanation as possible, without it being cumbersome.

I personally err on the side of over-explanation and have had some senior engineers give me feedback that it’s too much. Still learning for myself how much is too much.

Totally agree though, that there are many cases where people leave things out as assumed, when it’s not really reasonable to do so.

A side-thought on specificity: one of my biggest pet peeves is when people list pressure with the units of kPa, when they really mean kPag. In industry, you are rarely talking in absolute pressure (other than for pressure differences) and people then get lazy/don’t know/assume it’s fine to do something like: set point 100 kPa (when they mean 100 kPag). It isn’t fine though, because at lower pressures atmosphere counts for a pretty large percentage of the absolute value.