✺roguetrick✺

Lose what?

What point? All that’s been presented is that you post racist shit. There’s no argument, it’s just a factual presentation. It’s not a logical conclusion it’s a basic premise.

There’s no argument to be had, obviously. If you want one:

Racist shit is dumb. You acknowledge posting racist shit. Therefore you post dumb shit.

I feel justified but I also feel a bit racist. by Plesiohedron @lemmy.cafe

Chenoweth has valid points worthy of debate but I have to say, I’m never going to get my political philosophy on direct action from the fucking beeb.

I’m glad this project has been forked. I really want to see the direction other developers go with it

I had it in hand because it was on the second page of my comment history and I knew I had posted an image. I just found the fact that I’ve repeatedly been reminded of a band I haven’t thought of in years several times in a week funny.

https://lemmy.world/post/30921978/

Ptz also recently posted about them and I saw them brought up another time this week but I forget where. It’s just a lemmy week for them in my feed.

Christ ever since that shit post about a moth on the price is right it feels like Lemmy is nothing but presidents of the United States @ptz@dubvee.org

Yay.

The ice it was on melted and it sunk.

Yeah and even functional infrared eyes need to be at least twice the size of ours if not over ten times for more far thermal ranges. Anime eyes. The classic 20/20 D&D infravision would require eyes the size of basketballs, lol. Dark elves would put the innsmouth look to shame.

Handheld devices can receive it, but to actually “see” with it you need a very large aperture(iris) and a “retina” with many of those antennas that respond to different wavelengths. The overall structure of an eye capable of seeing would be massive, not because the signal is faint or you can’t “fit” the amplitude in the aperture but because that’s what you need for acuity and to actually have meaningful angular resolution. Those long waves have more limited angles to fit in a given eye diameter. For something like AM, we’re talking a very big structure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution

θ ≈ λ/D where θ is the angular resolution, λ is the wavelength, and D is the diameter of the aperture

As you can see, increasing the wavelength by orders of magnitude means you need to increase the aperture by orders of magnitude to get the same angular resolution.

They’d have really big eyes. Depending on the wavelength they can see, they might be nearly all eye.

If they were able to see a significant chunk of it at good acuity they’d have to be so big I doubt they could survive in a gravity well thanks to the square cube law of surface area. Be more like living space stations. If they were distributed organisms like a mycelium or Aspen colony, maybe they could survive actually visiting Earth, but they’d be really big. Processing that much data over large areas would mean they are very sophisticated thinkers but with a very high latency so slow.

One fun implication of these building sized to tens of kilometer sized eyes is that am sources would look like a one color light source getting brighter and darker while an fm source would slightly shift colors. Going to earth would be like going clubbing with strobes and disco lights thrown everywhere.

You’ll find you get much more engagement here either as a poster or a commenter.

That’s close to what Scalia/Thomas argued but that’s not what the majority opinion says. They explicitly say you always have the ability to plead the fifth and have it not be used as evidence. And it’s true. You never have to self incriminate. But their argument is you have to make it explicit, which is frankly dumb.

The amount of lurkers would surprise you.

That’s the trick. An example is the am I being detained thing. A clock of reasonableness starts ticking as soon as you’re detained until the detention is considered a potentially unlawful arrest, but that detention doesn’t start until the officer tells you you can’t leave. Also a cop has to have a valid reason to detain you or anything you say will be inadmissible in court. Until you ask that magic phrase, though, you’re having a consensual encounter and everything you say(or not say) will always be admissible.

The US supreme Court has decided that remaining silent isn’t actually asserting your fifth amendment right to remain silent. You need to actually affirm it. Nobody’s even pretending there’s logic to this shit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas

Anticompetitive structures in South Korea? I am shocked.