Bah, that’s nothing. You should see how many rivers flow right through the middle of big cities, and how close the ocean gets to expensive houses and certain fishing communities.

Coincidence, you say? Did you know that there is not a single city, with a population over a million, where the sea level sits more than ten metres above the median ground level of the city.

The ocean is amazing, my friends.

Thank you

Now ask plasma…

Huh, TIL

1812 Overture

Nah, it’s the surface area of the extent of the effect. (For greatest volume affected, suspend the device such that its effect can reach, unimpeded, a sphere with that surface area.) Dunno how the physics works; something-something Gauss’s law, I imagine.

Snakes?

That’s roaming. Have to pay extra; not covered by basic terms of service.

Yeah but shrinkflation means these days it comes with 20% less nutritional* particles.

*combustible

Some cities are still working on increasing them though. Just don’t go to the premium mountain venues though, or you get 20% less air per air!

I don’t like that Russia looks like they just took a Mercator projection and shrank to scale. Because of its shape and location, Russia is especially distorted by the Equatorial-centred Mercator.

Also what’s with the “excluding Russia” footnote?

Hatch or grow. Because once you’re asking those questions, is the first chick truly the first chicken?

“Is a juvenile defined by what it currently is or what it will/might become?” And, “is chicken-ness an innate quality of the animal, or in relation to the animal fulfilling/presenting (or being able to fulfil) some chicken-ness?”

Ah, but when that line of tiny change is so arbitrary… Is it a true chicken until it grows up and fulfils its destiny? Is it a chicken based purely on its genetic code, so the egg whence it hatched is a chicken egg; or is it truly a chicken when it becomes a chicken… meh, I write this far and find I still agree with you: even in that case the egg it hatched from becomes a chicken egg by virtue of the chicken it grew into.

Good job! And thank you.

obligatory your mum climbs a ladder joke

it’s Linux after all and that’s what matters

I agree it’s a good OS to use, and it is Linux, but there are layers and layers of what’s good for the user and the community.

I think there will always be layers of “this could be done better,” and "that’s in someone’s selfish interest rather than for the best of the users and community. Or at least layers of being better for some people and worse for others. Ubuntu has some of those layers - though I’m always grateful for the good they’ve done the community - and other distros surely have some too.

This was posted before the collision of the Indian subcontinent plate into Asia and the formation of the Himalayas.

Someone with no more than the most basic understanding of biology, ecology and climate rejecting the consensus with no findings of their own to provide makes them a conspiracy theorist.

Eh, perhaps we can be careful with the term ‘conspiracy theorist’. A conspiracy theory is that others have conspired to hide the truth. No need to think about conspiracies yet. Someone who looks at the ocean and says, meh, that’s flat, is just doing science at the most basic of levels. Somebody who heard vaccines increased autism is just someone who believes someone. It’s an academic survey at the most basic of levels.

Thus I’d like to coin the term, negligible science.

And if I’m considering my family’s health, or how to sail to India, I’d better trust the non-negligible science.

Of course, the global consensus that Australia exists is a deliberate lie sustained by powerful conspirators; so that’s a conspiracy theory: on top of the negligible science wherein I haven’t seen Australia recently so it doesn’t exist. (That one time was just a placebo Australia. You can tell because the kangaroos looked like people in suits.)

Doesn’t even have to be proper scientific method. People see patterns; patterns are science. A layman can spot something that was missed by experts: it happens sometimes.

Now, you don’t want to trust that layman’s findings against an expert, without proper investigation, preferably by those same experts! Step one is finding something; step two is verifying it in a way that other people can trust.

I guess the point is, yes, a lot of people stupidly think they’ve sussed out some great mystery based on limited knowledge and nonsense, against experts who have been patiently and carefully studying the matter; but the principle of investigating lines of thought that the - even expert - consensus has ruled out, is still an important one.