In a nutshell, alternative-imperialists with a leftist bent. They’re hypocrites. “Imperialism is evil…with these exceptions, those empires are cool”.

It’s frustrating trying to talk with tankies, because really I agree with practically all of their criticisms of the US and a few criticisms of NATO and the West at large. But then that gets turned around into a justification for X formerly-socialist country drafting soldiers to invade sovereign country “Y” with practically unanimous resistance, and I just don’t see how the hell that’s supposed to help the working class of either state.

IMO if the seasoning isn’t good enough to handle my abuse, then it isn’t good enough to be on the pan.

This is true, and something that I discovered myself recently. I tried babying one of my cast iron pans for while, seasoning with flaxseed oil, avoiding metal utensils, and only cleaning with a damp sponge or paper towel. I built up a seasoning quickly, but it was incredibly brittle, and actually began flaking off into my food. I haven’t used that pan since, haven’t gotten around to stripping and reasoning it.

Since then I’ve had the same mindset as you to great success: if this layer of seasoning can’t handle my abuse now, then it’s not fit to be the foundation for the next layer of seasoning. I almost exclusively use metal utensils now, clean with a copper scratch pad, and ditched the hard-but-brittle flax seed oil for whatever I happened to be cooking with. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not aggressive with the pan, I let the weight of the utensil or pad do all the work, but I’m not letting weak seasoning get seasoned over. If it’s weak enough that the copper pad takes it off, then it wasn’t a good seasoning anyway.

“her balls” was right there…

I’ve seen conservatives lob the word tankie around before like they do with other scary sounding political words. But not here on lemmy. “Tankie” has a very precise meaning on lemmy that everyone here seems to understand, despite a few tankies trying to gaslight people into thinking the term has “lost it’s meaning”.

More like trauma foam

It was fun finding the middle of that

Ooweeooweeooooo

Wow that color looks perfect to me

You’d probably be better off using your phone for taking photos of papers. Better camera, better angle/lighting, generally better editing options (with default photo apps, imo Photoshop is overkill for taking a picture of a document, generally I only adjust brightness and contrast). The only downside is needing to get the photo to the laptop, but there’s about a million ways to do that depending on your setup.

Fly by night if have to

Alright seriously, what’s for dinner?

Ok, I actually died when they started kissing through the harp. Wtf xD

Jesus Christ, take a walk my friend. No need for that toxicity in a shit post community

Thanks, and yeah that figures

I don’t use tiktok, I’ve never been interested in using tiktok, and if it was just going out of business or something then I would give precisely zero fuckaroos.

But I don’t need the government making the decision to block it for me arbitrarily. I confess that I’m not studied up on the reasoning behind blocking it (I’ve mostly heard about security concerns), but if Congress and the supreme court actually cared about digital security, then they’d be passing a bill of digital rights right now. Instead of doing that, they’re set on going after TikTok specifically, which tells us two things:

• Because they aren’t passing blanket digital privacy rights, it’s likely that TikTok is not the only company committing these privacy violations, but they don’t want to punish the “wrong” company.
• Given the previous point, it follows that they don’t actually care about digital privacy (duh), so the actual reason for banning them is likely something else. Other people in this thread have pointed out that the US government can’t control propaganda on TikTok like they can other social media, but it could also be as simple as clearing the way for American competitors/lobbyists who stand to profit from the ban.

So yeah, like you I don’t use tiktok so I’m not directly affected by the ban, I might’ve even supported it if it was due to an impartial bill of digital rights, but reasoning behind the actual ban is clearly bullshit on principle just by being so specific, and it sets a dangerous precedent. You saying that TikTok is shit so you don’t care if it gets injustly and unconstitutionally banned is no different then saying that George Floyd was a criminal so you don’t care if he was murdered by cops sans-due-process. You’re being distracted, soulifix. Think about it, if the government cared about addressing the issues with TikTok that you brought up in your post, why are they going after TikTok specifically instead of addressing that behavior generally?

Thx mate, brb…

TL;DR you can’t use infinity like that and your calculus professor will yell at you if you try.

Infinity isn’t a real number and it’s not generally useful to think of it as one like the dude in this comic is trying to. However, in calculus you can treat it as a concept that a variable or expression can approach. In that way, “approaching infinity” is just another way of saying “increasing forever” or “given a number x, you can always use x+1”. This is why expressions like “infinity = infinity" or “infinity = infinity+1” like the comic are not useful statements.

That’s also why your calculus professor is so insistent that you write out the whole limit notation, because it’s nonsense to just throw infinity into an expression raw (like “infinity+1” in the comic). But, if you think of it as “the limit of x+1, where x approaches infinity”, then it’s clear that infinity doesn’t have anything to do with the actual values, it’s just used to describe potential values.

Here’s an example if that still doesn’t make sense: Bob and Jill are twins who were born with 0 and 1 dollars respectfully, but both earn a dollar a day forever because they’re immortal. Just because they will live forever, doesn’t mean that they’ll ever be able to say “I’m infinite years old”. They’ll always be x years old, but x will increase by one every year from their birthday for the rest of time. For the same reasons, they’ll never be able to say “I have infinite money”, but if they don’t spend it, it will increase forever, approaching infinity. And finally, if neither Bob or Jill spends anything and that dollar a day is their only income, then Jill will always be worth a dollar more than Bob, even though both have infinite wealth potential.

No? First means less-than-50% probability of thing, second means less-than-100% probability of thing

One time I found a Jon Anderson record at a thrift store. The cashier picked it up, looked at it for 5 seconds, muttered “weird.”, looked at it for 2 more seconds, and put it in the bag. Honestly I thought that was hilarious

Album cover