lol there isn’t an original unless you count the Eddie Murphy version, which is not really connected to the muppet one. Besides both being about the haunted mansion.
::: spoiler Maybe get a cat thermal pad. They are always cold. I had issues with mine cuddling up to my warm thighs after a physical therapy cycling routine. She was causing issues so I got a pad on a hunch and a whim about her thermal motivation. She is on this thing ~23/7 since 2020. https://files.catbox.moe/ww2ixb.webp
I actually have one, as well as a 3d printer, I was sort of toying with the idea of taking the thermal pad, printing a base that looks like my router, and installing some tiny fans to blow the slightly warm air upwards, it would be a biggish product but I’d be down for her to keep the spot while I keep my router free of heat damage
I actually did a similar project for her which you can see in the Bottom left, it’s a little monitor that actually works and used to play bird videos so she could sit next to my desk and feel like she had her own monitor. Since then I’ve repurposed it to run a media server but she still gets to look at it i suppose . The back says peppersoft
Reminds me of the time uncle Rob told me how to wrestle properly. The trick is to not wear any clothes to keep them clean from the special wrestling oil he gave me, so mom doesn’t have to wash them.
IIRC in recent years eBay made it so that if you are one of their “top rated” sellers, buyers can’t leave the neutral or negative feedback for a week. Which is nice and all for sellers that are trying to resolve any issues a buyer may have, but not nice for situations like this one.
Somebody is obviously trying to cover all the bases. That’s just good thinking. If ghost are real, they get zapped. If they aren’t real, they get to chase a group of adolescents all over the place for about 20 minutes before said adolescents figure out it’s not a ghost for the umpteenth time.
There are two main problems in my opinion, and they are both related to the “fuel”. First, uranium is rare and you often need to buy it from other countries. For instance, Russia. Not great. Second, it is not renewable energy. We can’t rely on nuclear fission in the long run. Then there’s also the issue of waste, which despite not being as critical as some argue, is still a problem to consider
A big problem IMO is the generational responsibility of the waste as well. There needs to be decades of planning, monitoring and maintaince to ensure waste sites are safe and secure, this can be done but modern political climates can make it difficult.
Agreed, dealing with the waste is a thing. But for me a solvable problem and something that doesn’t need to be solved right away. We currently store a lot of nuclear waste in holding locations till we figure out a way to either make it less radioactive or store it for long enough. The alternative however is having coal plants all over the world spew all their dust (including radioactive dust) and CO2 straight into the atmosphere. This to me is a far bigger issue to solve. It isn’t contained in one location, but instead ends up all over the world. It ends up in people’s homes and bodies, with a huge impact to their health. It ends up in the atmosphere, with climate change causing huge (and expensive) issues.
The amount of money we need to handle nuclear waste would be orders of magnitude lower than what we are going to have to pay to handle climate change. And that isn’t even fixing the issue, just dealing with the consequences. I don’t know how we are ever going to get all that carbon back out of the atmosphere, but it won’t be cheap.
It’d be nice to prioritise it at least rather than tucking it away under the oil and gas rug. There is no real competition in energy output to a nuclear power plant. And despite its egregious up front cost, operating it is relatively low cost.
In regards to fuel, uranium is used often but there is options such as thorium that have been used with some success. I do agree it is unfortunate to have to purchase from other countries but I think it beats buying natural gas from wherever it may be sold.
you often need to buy it from other countries. For instance, Russia. Not great.
Yeeeeah, I wouldn’t worry about that. Sure we (Australia) are conservative with our fears of mining and exporting uranium, especially with the Cold War and reactor whoopsies around the world. But historically it doesn’t take much for us to go down on an ally.
Is that supposed to convince me that there’s plenty of uranium left? Because based on the numbers shown with reserve vs. historical usage it kinda seems like it would last for a few decades at best.
The mining is also usually a really polluting affair for the region, much more than the what power generation might suggest. And overall, in many countries there is a lot of subsidies going on for hidden costs, especially relating to the waste and initial construction. So it is not as cheap as a first look might suggest.
I’m not against it per se, it is better than fossil fuels, which simply is the more urgent matter, but it’s never been the wonder technology it has been touted as ever since it first appeared.
One thing to remember about the mining issue is that coal mining is just as bad, and coal is often radioactive as well. More people have died from radiation poisoning due to coal power/mining than have died from radiation poisoning due to nuclear power, even when you include disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Of course, we’ve also been mining and using coal a lot longer, but the radioactive coal dust and possibly radioactive particles in the smoke from coal plants is something that many people are unaware of.
But, like you said, the big thing is to move away from fossil fuels entirely, and nuclear power has its own issues. It doesn’t so much matter what we go with so long as we do actually go with something, and renewables are getting better and better all the time.
Coal has caused more deaths this year than the entire history of nuclear anything has in total. This includes nuclear energy, nuclear research, nuclear medicine, nuclear irradiation (food storage), and too many orphan sources.
Except that you don’t need uranium for nuclear reactors. The reason it’s used traditionally because it’s also used for nuclear weapons. Thorium is a much better fuel that’s more abundant. China has already started operating these types of reactors. The other advantage of this design is that they use molten salt instead of water for cooling. Molten salt reactors don’t need to be built next to large bodies of water, and they are safer because salt becomes solid when it cools limiting the size of contamination in case of an accident.
I don’t think it will. The large cost of a reactor will probably be shared, but fission plants don’t deal with plasma, magnets, hydrogen/helium storage, lasers, or capacitors. And we don’t even know the method by which a practical fusion plant will operate!
I am talking in the sense that the same companies are participating in fusion research, and pretty sure the methods you mentioned are utilized somewhat in nuclear plants. Like handling and filtering radioactive materials.
Radioactive waste maybe. Fusion plants are likely to create irradiated parts that degrade quickly, similar to fission plants. Fusion fuel on the other hand, is gaseous, and likes to escape. Hydrogen is explosive, while helium-3 is just expensive.
You’ve taken an apex predator, evolved for the stresses of the tooth and claw natural world, fulfilled their every need and whim, and now all they have left is choir practice and occasional surprise attacks on unwary feet.
I think that might be geographic dependent, for instance there’s nothing around here that would predate cats, which would suggest they are, locally at least, apex by default.
There aren’t many wildcats left here though, maybe if there were we’d see larger predators move in and push cats down the food chain, so I can see the mesopredator argument.
I don’t think foxes typically go for cats around here, and, as far as I’m aware, not much eats them either. We don’t have any of the larger predators that might kill them just to remove competition either, so I suppose foxes are apex predators here too.
On the other hand, I can see either a cat or a fox being a tasty morsel for a bear, so tge whole apex/meso distinction is certainly location dependent.
the 1% are shitting their collective pampers over the peasant class slowly but surely beginning to realize just how exploited we are, and how fucked they would be if it actually got to the point where we all organized
edit: they wouldn’t actually be “fucked,” they’d just be slightly less of a billionaire, which is still unacceptable to them. so fuck’em
There are times where I wonder if these public mass shootings are sometimes a guy at the end of his rope, with no support system, and no reason to live. So he goes out buys a machine gun with enough firepower that could shoot down a building.
Then just goes ham. In his own mind he’s “getting back at the man!”
My only doubt though, is these shootings never happen where it would affect the man. Its always at like a theater, or a grocery store.
You never hear of suicide bombers blowing up microsoft hq, or the IRS building.
So I’m not saying I’m right. Theres even some evidence to be argued that I’m wrong.
Not really. They’re still sowing division among the peasantry, and it’s still working. People want someone to blame for their troubles, and the 1% is all to happy to give you a target based on your demographics.
Yes, but speaking as a white male, alomst everyone in the 1%, at least in the USA, looks like me. Obviously I know they’re the enemy, but there’s a lot of us and it’s very easy for the 1% to convince us that marginalized groups are the problem (Blacks, trans people, immigrants;etc).
Memes like this are like the word art that’s hung up in homes. It gets a lot of passive attention but if you stop to think about it, it’s all really fucking dumb.
Brother I can tell you with all my heart I enjoy the crap out of my job. If I were independently wealthy would I spend less time at work? Sure, but only because it would allow me the ability to work on other projects at the same time. And no, I’m not some crazy workaholic that stays late and works weekends, in fact I make a point not to work overtime. That doesn’t change the fact that I genuinely want to work.
When it comes to assessments of job satisfaction, about half of U.S. workers who are not self-employed (51%) report being extremely or very satisfied with their job overall; 37% say they are somewhat satisfied, while 12% are not too or not at all satisfied with their job.
You have to understand that most humans want their lives to have a purpose, and their job is one of the things that can provide that sense of purpose. If it’s a halfway decent job you’ll have a group of similar people all working together towards a common goal. It’s a miniature community, even if it’s not the one you’d turn to for emotional support.
It’s tempting to opt for telematics/black box insurance because of the initial cheaper prices but the privacy violations and potential downsides make it not worth it.
You can be the best defensive driver in the world but sometimes you’re just going to have to brake hard to avoid an object that may jump on you, dinging your driving score and raising your premiums.
Contrary to what this post’s image says, I’m reading online that these apps aren’t perfect at differentiating between who’s a driver and who’s a passenger.
Have fun fighting with your insurance to get them to remove anything from your record.
Last week a squirrel decided it didn’t want to live anymore and jumped into my way while I was driving. It was on an empty slow street at night so I was safely able brake hard to avoid killing the poor thing. If I had spyware insurance they would’ve dinged me for it.
I’ll preface this by saying this shady shit gets all my hate.
It’s tempting to opt for telematics/black box insurance because of the initial cheaper prices but the privacy violations and potential downsides make it not worth it.
The overall problem here is that human psychology tends to frame this difference as a loss not a gain. Given the choice, people will see the cheaper option as the baseline, and then ask “can I afford to pay more for privacy?” instead of affirming “my privacy is not worth this discount.”
Also, those of us that have paid for insurance without such a “discount”, are likely keenly aware of the difference. For new drivers, from now to here on out, the lack of past experience presents a new baseline where this awfulness is normalized. Competition between insurance providers won’t help us here since the “privacy free” option is still profitable and is enticing for new customers (read: younger, poorer). So it’ll take some kind of law, collective action, or government intervention to make this go away.
Have fun fighting with your insurance to get them to remove anything from your record. […] If I had spyware insurance they would’ve dinged me for it.
I think this is the bigger problem. If someone has the data an insurance company wants, you probably agreed to an EULA or signed something that makes their ownership, and its sale, legal. With the “yeah go ahead and use my data” option on the table, the machinery to do this without your knowledge is already in place. All the insurance provider has to do is buy the data from someone else. When the price is right, 1st party spyware isn’t required at all.
It’s crazy how most of those programs work. The way my insurance handles it is way better. For example, no matter how bad you are at driving, they never raise the premiums above the normal rate, so it almost always makes sense to get the tracker from a finance perspective. (The only exception is that they will raise your rates if you drive farther in 6 months than you estimated on your initial application. The flip side is that they lower your rates if you don’t drive very much. I only drive about 1000 miles every 6 months, so my premium is really low.) They also have a Bluetooth device that stays in your car that your phone must be connected to in order for it to record trip data, and if you happen to be riding as the passenger in the car, the app has an option that allows you to clarify for each trip that you weren’t the driver. I was surprised to learn they aren’t all like that.
Something has already happened and they didn’t touch my rates. I’ve been saving hundreds of dollars a year. I’ve saved well into the thousands of dollars at this point. I’m not saying the insurance companies are my friends and while I am better off using the tracker than not using it, that wasn’t even my point. My point was that the trackers all function differently and some are better than others.
Don’t do it. It’s a bait and switch. You’ll get the initial discount, then you brake hard one day because someone cuts you off… and next thing you know your rate goes up. Also if your take a turn too fast. If you speed. If you accelerate hard (RPMs go above normal range).
You can be the best defensive driver in the world but sometimes you’re just going to have to brake hard to avoid an object that may jump on you, dinging your driving score and raising your premiums.
If you’re the best driver in the world, you don’t need to carry insurance because the lifetime expected spending on premiums is below the lifetime insurance payments. The only reason you carry insurance is if you’re not sure whether you’re the best driver in the world.
Once your insurance knows (better than you) where you rank as a driver, they will either refuse to cover you (because costs > revenues) or raise your rates until you fall into a high risk of changing carriers (because that’s where they maximize profits). The initial discount is simply a teaser rate, while the company collects more data. The real determination of your max tolerable premium is your personal income, which is set by the value of your vehicle. All the telematics is hand-wavy bullshit. You really might be the best driver in the world, but they’ll still raise your rates if they think you’ll pay it.
The real secret to getting a lower insurance premium is to own a cheaper car (and therefore signal to your insurer that you have less money to spend on insurance).
In terms of the erosion, doesn’t wind erosion on raised surfaces behave very similar to how water erosion on shores behaves?
Since both are just fluids brushing up against surfaces, and the fact in the desert the wind will have a lot of silica dust in it, it stands to reason the wind currents around the pyramid would have very similar erosion patterns to water on a shore.
Fluids are fluids, air doesn’t behave to dissimilar from the ocean, and wind is not to dissimilar from water currents in terms of the physics.
Silica dust will kick up off the nearby dunes, carry in the wind, but due to its weight it’ll be less likely to erode higher elevations. So the tip top of the pyramid is high enough up sand in the wind won’t reach it as easily so it erodes way slower.
Much akin to how waves crash on a coastline, water has weight so the higher an elevation is, the less and less sea spray it gets hit by, so it erodes slower.
With no background in the subject my assumption is that it would be more punctuated or abrupt for water. However I don’t think it would be two lines for the troughs vs crests. I’d assume it would just be general water height. The reason is that water would obviously erode much quicker than air. Add on that the water level is much more definite than air and how high dust would get within the air to increase erosion.
Again, no background expertise. Just what I’d guess in the given subject in general.
I’m going to throw a little bit of a curveball at ya. Most of the damage to the pyramids in Giza isn’t from erosion. They were originally covered in white limestone and the tops were capped in hammered gold. An earthquake sometime in the early 1300s began dislodging the limestone and from about 1600 to about 1800 a quarry was established in Giza and the gold and limestone were removed.
Silica dust will kick up off the nearby dunes, carry in the wind, but due to its weight it’ll be less likely to erode higher elevations. So the tip top of the pyramid is high enough up sand in the wind won’t reach it as easily so it erodes way slower.
That, and the pyramids were stripped for building materials later on. Lower levels were easier to access, so people didn’t generally bother going all the way to the top, except for the ones with gold covered peaks.
Not to mention, according to the Bible the world was only flooded for a few months. I’m not an expert on erosion, but this guy definitely is dumber than me.
Also even going with the flood theory, pretty sure Egypt comes after Noah even in the Bible itself >_>;
The world did flood when humans were around (most cultures have great flood stories from ancient times), but that was way way before Egypt.
Amusingly iirc the Nile nearby however is a great example of proof the earth once was covered in ice the melted and flood, as I believe it’s a giant striation or whatever the term is, huge gouge left behind by receding ice, no?
That’s why it’s so big and runs so far, it’s ancient from countless years of erosion and meandering after being carved out during the ice age.
Genesis is pretty clear that Egypt came after the flood. Noah had sons with him. One of them, Ham fathered Africans. Noah’s grandson Mizraim was the father of all Egyptians.
Some early Christians reconciled that with the obvious age of the pyramids by guessing that the pyramids predated the flood and modern Egyptians were simply a new population, but no one’s seriously argued that in literal millennia.
lemmy.world
Top