I absolutely see the problem, but making users host their own server to host their actor profile and posts is just too complicated. I mean why not just host the whole AP server then...
Additionally it reminded me a lot of Activity Pods
Hosting data yourself wouldn’t be required, but it would become an option.
You’d have the option of leaving your identity on your home server, or a separate domain/website, or host your data and identity but use another instance to federate.
Though, designing UX for this will be an interesting challenge.
it cant make other liquids wet because its already wet by nature. thats just what liquids are. no matter how many times you tell me im wrong, i’ll always know you are wrong
it cant make other liquids wet because its already wet by nature
incorrect. this is the association fallacy-- you cannot prove it is wet other than through fallacy. wetness is only a property it can give to other things, not a property it possesses itself. water can’t be wet simply because it makes something else wet.
therefore, you are wrong.
no matter how many times you tell me im wrong, i’ll always know you are wrong
no its you being a hypocrite, which is why you are wrong
water is wet, and everything you try saying how it “only gives wetness but doesnt have it” just further is proving how water is wet. because everything that touches it becomes wet, besides water, because ita already wet
How disappointing that you’ve turned to anger and accusations, all because you refuse to accept that water is not wet, it merely makes things that touches wet.
actually it is you who can’t wrap your head around the fact that water is wet, and it’s because it makes other things wet. water cant make wet water because water is already wet in the first place
Nope. Water is not wet. It just makes other things wet.
And insulting me by saying I’m “cracking” just because I’ve said the same thing over and over makes no sense. That sounds desperate. So does breaking down into foul language when you don’t get your way…
you are projecting again. not sure what sounds angry in any of my comments
You keep saying that after you do it, along with swearing and name-calling. I recommend that you go outside for a breath of fresh air. The fact that water isn’t wet, but only makes things wet obviously has you infuriated…
Maybe you’d even understand that water isn’t sugar (or fire) while you’re at it!
and you seem to be taking every comment in only the worst possible way imaginable. no anger here, and there hasnt been any name calling. perhaps you made it up? please show me where my comments offended you and i will explain myself clearly, for i do not know what you talk about
Nah, water isn’t wet, it just makes other things wet. It’s unfortunate that this upsets you to the point that you have to make up stories about me and that you have amnesia about the things you’ve said— that you even confuse water with sugar and fire. You must be in quite the twist.
its not ive forgotten but my brain just made my memories get forgotten. but i havent forgotten lets get that straight
and if it is just water, why go through all the trouble of convincing that it isnt wet? feels we are just arguing the meaning of the word wet and not the word that can describe water the best (which is wet)
its not ive forgotten but my brain just made my memories get forgotten. but i havent forgotten lets get that straight
So… you didn’t forget… your brain forgot? lol
And I’m not trying to convince you of anything— I’m just correcting you. It’s you who have been trying all the convincing with your logical fallacies, acting like water is the same as fire or sugar. Then I have to correct you again by informing you that water is not sugar or fire. I’ve had to do that more than once now.
Since you are so confused, I suggest you take a rest. Water isn’t wet. It just makes things wet.
water is wet. because it makes things wet. and you seem to not grasp what a comparison is either. i never said fire or sugar was water i was comparing your logic to something else
and my first point is basically what is being said about water “not being wet” it is yet another comparison, as in i didnt forget my brain made me forget. water isnt wet it just makes things wet. comparison
One again, I must correct you and - apparently - your brain that makes you forget things.
Water is not wet; it just makes things wet. The transitive property of math does not apply to water because water is not math. (Another thing water is not).
You seem increasingly confused, blaming your “brain” for your mistakes. I suggest giving your “brain” a nice rest.
Once again, it’s a false equivalence logical fallacy— neither sugar nor fire are water, and there is no reason to believe they would act like water. Especially considering that water is not wet, it just makes things wet.
This seems to be causing you quite a bit of distress and memory problems. I suggest a rest.
You falsely compared to water to fire and sugar. Water is neither fire nor sugar. Water has none of the properties of fire nor sugar. You are clearly very confused about what water is and what sugar and fire are.
You blamed your “brain” for this. Repeatedly.
May you and your “brain” have a speedy recovery as you ponder how water is not wet, it just makes other things wet.
“Nuh uh!” isn’t a very compelling argument. It seems that you are the one who is out of ideas and whose “brain” keeps forgetting things… weren’t you the one accusing me of projecting? Lol
you just said nuh uh isnt a compelling argument and then just did exactly that LMAO
I see that your “brain” is still confused, since that’s not what happened. But it’s cute that you think it is. Like how you think sugar and fire are water.
But water isn’t wet; it just makes other things wet.
Now your “brain” seems to be hallucinating, since I never made such a claim. This whole this seems to have really upset you. Perhaps you should take a break and consider how water isn’t wet— it just makes other things wet.
i’ve already used the sad remark in a comment, so in your reply moaning about copying you directly copy me. and when did i say you have nothing original to say? never
water is wet. i can tell because i touch it and it is wet
lol, now your imagination is getting a bit carried away— and you can’t even remember the things you said. All because water isn’t wet, it just makes things wet.
im not upset. im just wondering why you are always making things up is all, and why you think water isnt wet because it is obvious water is wet, everything water touches becomes wet so how can it not be wet?
Given your tone, the swearing, the making stuff up, and the frequent problems with your “brain”, you obviously are upset. Just because water isn’t wet, but just makes things wet isn’t cause for all of that.
You keep saying that, yet you’re the only one who uses strong language and had repeated trouble with his “brain”, hallucinating… And just because you can’t read tone in text doesn’t mean others can’t. The amount you’re tormenting yourself over water not being wet, just making other things wet… it’s silly.
You keep saying that, but the only rage and pretend seems to come from your own cheer and projection. Really, I wonder, if it weren’t for the waters (that don’t wet) where would you get you wetting?
No insults, just observations of your “brain” problems that you keep having, the one which keep you from understanding that water isn’t wet, it just makes things wet.
There’s that “brain” getting things wrong again, as you’ve often admitted it does, just like it keeps mistaking water for being wet when it just makes things wet. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
You’re the one who first admitted that your “brain” wasn’t working right, which is obvious since you don’t understand that water isn’t wet, it just makes things wet. Lol
your “brain” is yet again not working. you dont know what a comparison is even after explanation, why would i ever believe you when you say water isnt wet 😂
There your “brain” goes again not working, thinking water is wet when it’s not, just because it makes other things wet. Weren’t you the one accusing me of projecting, lol?
There your “brain” goes again not working, thinking water is wet when it’s not, just because it makes other things wet. Weren’t you the one accusing me of projecting, lol?
It threw me at first too. Helps to think of it as wetness being an interaction between a liquid and solid. Water makes things wet, it isn’t itself wet.
You’d have to ask a physicist. I would be surprised if you couldn’t make other liquids “wet”. The solid analogy helps with conceptualising an interface, one material on another. I suppose you could make water wet, by freezing a block and then splashing said block with water but that doesn’t equate to it being wet itself, if that makes sense.
Wetting is a rather complex topic. Basically, yes.
Not all solids can be wetted. Wax, for example: water beads up on a waxed surface; it does not actually wet the surface.
Not all “wetting” involves water. Soldering and brazing involve “wetting” base materials with a molten filler metal. Dripping molten metal on the base material does not necessarily “wet” it either: the molten filler can “bead” just like water on wax. When it solidifies, the filler metal is not bonded to the unwetted base metal.
This describes very specifically how water makes other things wet. Nowhere, does it describe water making itself wet, because it can’t. Wetness is a property that water can only give to other things, not to itself.
Lol literally arguing with a chemist who’s only job was studying water. Yeah I can see where you’re mistaken. Thinking you’re smarter than the professionals.
With these corridors, they fence the road so that the animals can only pass over the bridge. And youre right, sometimes they do raise the road and let animals pass under. It depends on the topography.
When we design things like this in reclamation, there is often the concern that the designed feature can act like a trap or increase predation. There was an article a while back that showed that these are actually safe, and blend into the surrounding landscape in terms of risk to the animals.
Oh look, someone actually backing their viewpoint up on the internet:
i’d imagine that risk would be easily outweighed by animals being able to safely cross anyways, not like predators just sit there inhaling prey unceasingly, they would go there to catch something then leave with their food to go eat.
While you’re right, in that predators won’t sit there, doing their best to get on Season 8 of My 600-lb life, they definitely exploit linear corridors like this if they aren’t properly constructed. Transmission lines, for instance, can be really gnarly for ungulates. Both predators and prey are smart. For predators, if there’s an easy meal to be had, they’ll continue to over-use this feature on the landscape, rather than the rest of their habitat (why cook, when you can order in?). This in and of itself is an impact on the natural ecosystem, and something we try to avoid, when the goal is ‘no impact’ or ‘as close to no impact as possible’.
From a prey standpoint, if you see Jim-Bob getting ripped apart by wolves, or got chased by pack of hungry wolves, you’d be pretty hesitant to use that feature again, now wouldn’t you? In this regard, not properly designing these things can essentially render them useless to ungulates and the like, and prevent the re-connection of the two polygons (areas) we’re trying to connect.
I sent it better to funnel wildlife into traps for predators than to have the wildlife killed by vehicles on a road, attracting those predators onto the road seeking out their carcasses only to be hit by vehicles themselves?
Many owls and raptors get killed because they are trying to feed on a carcass in the road and get hit themselves.
Texas is getting an accurate simulation of living in Ukraine right now. Except the hurricanes aren’t targeting civilian infrastructure and children hospitals on purpose
Of course you can downvote. Community rules are about whether a post or user will be removed. If you think OP’s post is so bad try to get it downvoted like you are
We had a Democratic nomination process and the voters have spoken clearly and decisively. I received over 14 million votes, 87% of the votes cast across the entire nominating process. I have nearly 3,900 delegates, making me the presumptive nominee of our party by a wide margin. This was a process open to anyone who wanted to run. Only three people chose to challenge me. One fared no badly that he left the primaries to run as an independent. Another attacked me for being too old and was soundly defeated. The voters of the Democratic Party have voted. They have chosen me to be the nominee of the party.
Do we now just say this process didn't matter? That the voters don't have a say? I decline to do that. I feel a deep obligation to the faith and the trust the voters of the Democratic Party have placed in me to run this year. It was their decision to make. Not the press, not the pundits, not the big donors, not any selected group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned. The voters — and the voters alone — decide the nominee of the Democratic Party. How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I cannot do that. I will not do that.
fedia.io
Active