Snazz

This shape could exist as a projection onto an upright cylinder, wrapping around the cylinder. The two straight edges go vertically along opposite sides of the cylinder. The curved lines wrap around the circumference. The lines are now straight and parallel on the net of the cylinder.

But we can go further: Imagine taking this cylinder and extending it. Wrap it into a loop by connecting the top to the bottom so it forms a torus (doughnut) shape. This connects both sides of the shape, now all “interior” angles are on the inside of the square, and all “exterior” angles are on the outside. The inside and outside just happen to be the same side.

“boomer” in this is just being used as slang for “old people”.

The modern Oedipus

I feel like that might have been the point. Rather than “using a car to go from A to B” they walked.

Sourcing the carbon from the atmosphere is still better than getting it from the ground. It turns a net positive emission source into net zero.

On the full cup, the circle is aligned with the center of the handle, but on the partial cups it’s aligned to the right edge of the handle. Can’t unsee

Arithmetic coding is one of my favorite algorithms. Any token predictor can be converted into an entropy encoder!

I have not once mentioned the media in my comments. Please do not misunderstand. They all were pertaining to your and @opinionhaver’s interaction

If they are incorrect, lying, and don’t realize it, but still arguing in good faith, then their arguments will fall short when challenged. If they are arguing in bad faith, then it’s a different story.

I’ll admit the claims they made are perhaps overly broad and difficult to challenge, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that they can back it up with examples / evidence.

Jumping straight to calling them out is pretty disingenuous. Even if their points are more disingenuous and misleading, you shouldn’t be fighting fallacy with another fallacy.

Then engage with the discussion??? It’s very frustrating reading your comments actively shutting down discourse.

Here I’ll do it for you: I disagree with @opinionhaver because I think that filling stadiums in red and swing states is a tangible metric that is at least correlated with general election support. I think that Trump is even more polarizing than AOC, and so her polarization isn’t as much of an issue as they make it out to be.

There. Now we find out how substantial their position is when they defend it, instead of just crying about talking points

It may be worth it to decide how we define ‘unstoppable force’ and ‘immovable object’.

An Immovable Object has 0 velocity:

v = 0

Acceleration is the time derivative of velocity:

a = d/dt(v(t))

a = d/dt(0)

a = 0

And we know that

a = F~net~ / m

An object with infinite mass would satisfy this equation, but an object with no net force would too. We could add a correction force that will satisfy the constraint of 0 net force.

|F~net~| = 0

∑F~i~ = 0

F~correction~ + … = 0

To satisfy Newton’s 3rd law, we would need a reaction force to our correction force somewhere, but let’s not worry about that for now.

A physics definition of ‘Unstoppable Force’ is:

|F~unstoppable~| =/= 0

In this case the gravitational force fits this description, given a few constraints

F~g~ = Gm∑ M~i~ / x~i~^2^

As long as the gravitational constant G is not 0, our object has mass, and

∑ M~i~ / x~i~^2^ =/= 0, then

|F~g~| > 0

But this does feel kinda like cheating because it’s not really what people mean by ‘unstoppable force’. the other way to define it is just immovable object in a different reference frame.

a = 0, |v| > 0

I’m gonna stop here because this is annoying to type out on mobile

When did we even decide the proper course of action for dealing with gangs was to deport them? Everyone is debating whether he’s a gang member but even if he was, he shouldn’t have been deported.