Honestly…I don’t.

Like I love my parents but we’re not really into any of the same stuff. (Well technically all of us went to engineering school, but they’re not really interested in engineering/math/physics for its own sake like I am.)

But also that’s fine with me because I know they’re there for me.

For similar reasons, I’m not very close to any of my family members, even the ones I like… which is fine. We don’t need to be close to love/support/trust each other.

So I think that if you really share zero interests with your son, it’s fine if you acknowledge his interests and remind him that you’ll be there for him and that you love him.

Doesn’t change my answer, except that Putin/[insert dictator of choice here] shouldn’t be planning our destruction either, because no one should.

Also see this comment. Tl;dr: I literally don’t care about governments’ rights to defend themselves from each other when, in any case, it will be the rest of life on Earth that pays the price.

Ok so if intelligence reports claim there’s a risk of a coordinated attack

The US is the only nuclear armed country with a history of actually using it. I’m a LOT more scared of the US doing the coordinated attack on someone than I am of the thought of any of the other nuclear armed countries striking first.

Also implying I trust literally anything the US intelligence machine ever says ever.

what do you think the US should do to defend itself?

Boring answer: Not fucking use nuclear weapons, that’s for sure. Diplomacy should be enough.

Honest answer: I literally don’t care about the US government’s “right” to “defend” itself literally at all. As far as the innocent people who actually live here, we will respond in the only way that our government has planned for us in any disaster scenario: get sacrificed to maintain continuity of government and capitalist power.

I did read the article.

IMO any politician advocating for anything less than permanent global nuclear disarmament needs to have spitballs lobbed at them perpetually without debate.

While the Biden administration is not putting a date on when it will happen, they are not ruling out that they are willing (and more importantly able) to nuke the planet if something offends them.

I acknowledge that this is not some bombshell piece of news because it is “normal”, i.e. the US military plans for various invasions and scenarios that they supposedly don’t intend to act on. But this kind of anti-social behavior is not only allowed, but publicly funded as if it’s supposed to benefit everyone. I’m calling it out precisely because it is normal.

My point is the fact that if you believe in nuclear nonproliferation, voting for either candidate won’t move the needle on the issue.

Vote Blue No Matter Who so that Bad Man doesn’t get into office and launch the nukes!

…

What do you mean the Democrats are the ones planning to launch the nukes?!?

Yeah I actually brought that up in my top-level reply. But does the two years count the time spent as Acting President?

I don’t know. It does count, it’s part of my top-level comment but I have the shittiest memory in the universe.

If we’re being pedantic

I’m always pedantic, except when I’m not 😂

Thanks 👍. I corrected my response.

I pasted the entire 22nd Amendment into my reply to this post. The “trigger” isn’t the numerical value of 8 years total, it’s the numerical value great than 2 years served.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

… no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected…

So having previously served two years exactly is allowed.

I’m not a legal expert so take this with a grain of salt. Assuming the Constitution is followed as it currently written…which is a big assumption…

The two-term limitation comes from the 22nd Amendment. This amendment is, in it’s entirety, quoted below:

Section 1

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Concerning Section 2, it was ratified so it is law. Not important to answer our question.

If Joe Biden resigns or is permanently incapacitated right as I post this, then Kamala Harris would become acting President until his term ends on January 20th, 2025 for 157 days, 158 if you count today, which is a far cry from two years. (I believe that she was designated Acting President for a few hours while Biden was getting a colonoscopy, so add that to the tally maybe probably not.)

So it looks like, if I read the bolded section correctly, she would be eligible to be elected a second time if she took over from Biden should he be incapacitated or resign.

Edited based on feedback.

Haha I don’t have the GPU for that. Also it’s called “mining” crypto, not “youring” crypto.

Only 544 bookmarks to go

Not great. Sad and bored and feeling kinda hopeless. Need something to work towards. Thankfully school is starting up in September.

Solution: simply cover your most phallic groceries with condoms, then dispose the condoms before eating.

YAAAAAAASSSSS AKERFELDT IS GROWLING AGAIN!!! 🤘🤘🤘🤘

B is the magnetic field. Both B and E fields generate measurable forces.

In particular, magnetic forces require the charge to be moving. If v = 0, the term v × B = 0, i.e. it disappears. The equation above is really why magnets are able to do stuff.

Some materials are just naturally “more chill with” having its charges magnetized into motion. These are your permanent magnets. Electromagnets use an external source to generate an electric current, which is charge in motion, which generates the magnetic field.

It’s wildly more complicated than that, like it’s literally several college courses, but IMO that’s the gist of it.

7y(12e+11) - 85 = 2y +12e

(7(12e+11)-2)y = 12e + 85

y = (12e + 85)/(7(12e+11)-2)

y = (12e + 85)/(84e+77-2)

y = (12e + 85)/(84e+75)

Assuming e := exp(1) ≈ 2.73, my calculator says that y ≈ 0.3878, or a little over a third.

If e :≠ exp(1), then we need a second equation to even have the possibility of a unique solution. As it stands, e may take on any value except -75/84 = -25/28 ≈ -0.8929 where the denominator goes to zero. To see this, assume that the equality does hold with e := -75/84. Then:

7y(12e+11) - 85 = 2y +12e

7y(12(-75/84)+11) - 85 = 2y +12(-75/84)

2y - 85 = 2y - 75/7

85 = 75/7

595 = 75

We have reached a contradiction. Since the only assumption made was that e := -75/84, it must be impossible.

o7

To understand memes

From Wikipedia:

A fatwa is a legal ruling on a point of Islamic law (sharia) given by a qualified Islamic jurist (faqih) in response to a question posed by a private individual, judge or government.

So unless you live in a country that runs on Sharia law and have your real information connected to your account, you can safely ignore it.

You could report the poster for being mean if it goes against that community’s or instance’s rules. Up to you. But I think someone’s just being a troll.