Fedizen
@Fedizen@lemmy.world
- Comment on This is real. Big controversy regarding cheating in Olympic events because of the size of suit worn by jumpers 8 hours ago:
That is just how the olympics and pro sports works.
95% training 5% finding the mutants
- Comment on This is real. Big controversy regarding cheating in Olympic events because of the size of suit worn by jumpers 8 hours ago:
Suit circumference I think means “of the entire suit”. Its a weird way to say it but in the context they’re using it, it makes sense.
- Comment on lightbulbs 11 hours ago:
I was looking at exactly the same pages you were. Try reading those articles (or use ctrl+f) if you want to know where the filter discription is from.
You don’t need to concoct a fictional story about where the information came from. Its clear your purpose here isn’t to inform anyone at this point. If you’ve ever talked to an engineer prior to this you would not have this opinion of my colleages.
And the analogy here is so bad. If the solar panel were partially transparent and part of system was dependent on that transparency.
Engineers say its “acting as a filter” because thats a way of analyzing the system. For all and intents and purposes anything can effectively be modeled as a filter in certain design situations has been called a filter. So yes, engineers do talk like this.
Source: used to work in an electronics hardware development lab with electrical, optical, and software engineers.
- Comment on spagett 2 days ago:
If they did a good job it would go to a meme community. Memes that miss the mark hit the shit.
- Comment on lightbulbs 2 days ago:
your explanation is otherwise in line with what I’ve read.
That’s not even close to reality That’s incoherent.
Fwiw, I did read the article you linked. That’s one of the articles I looked at originally.
I’m just saying its innapropriate to say its “not a filter” because the coating is doing more than partially filtering a wavelength of light; Its a categorical error.
The coating’s primary engineering function is not a filter, so maybe its frustrating to hear it described as one but it is absolutely incorrect to say its not a filter.
- Comment on Recently got a place with my boyfriend and he thinks this is perfectly fine 2 days ago:
Would need to be much shorter to be … Hitler’s.
Is there a word for ‘suicide by proxy’ because I feel like that is the core of all fascist movements; kill as many neighbors as possible. Like a family annihilator only your family is like a weird cult.
- Comment on I still haven't figured out how to do this 2 days ago:
This is missing the 🌏
- Comment on Recently got a place with my boyfriend and he thinks this is perfectly fine 2 days ago:
With one ball? Centered? No, this is a TP tower.
- Comment on lightbulbs 2 days ago:
The phosphorous coating here is serving to reduce the amount of blue light as an absorptive filter. Its just also doing other stuff. Idk if there’s a proper term for what its doing in whole, but your explanation is otherwise in line with what I’ve read.
- Comment on You must tell me, please! 2 days ago:
This was like 2013 right?
- Comment on Work smarter, not harder 2 days ago:
“They made a lot of strange decisions before they shut down”
- Comment on When you're smarter than the teacher that wrote the test 2 days ago:
Was this a test on “contextual awareness” or on numbers?
- Comment on [deleted] 2 days ago:
Karenposting in the shitpost community
- Comment on Is Wikipedia's Volunteer Model Facing a Generational Crisis? 3 days ago:
“designed to serve readers” [citation needed]
- Comment on lightbulbs 3 days ago:
You can’t easily use a filter to turn red light into blue. Imo if you needed to light a room for a camera or something not the human eye, red seems like it would be effective for that, but given the filter situation and the eye being best at detecting green light it doesn’t make sense to use red as the base color for indoor bulbs.
From what I read, red LEDs were most efficient at 1.8v and blue more near 4v. Maybe its trivial to do second voltage line but the filter situation is probably the limiting factor here.
- Comment on lightbulbs 3 days ago:
It seemed odd the lower frequency diodes would be less efficient so I did a quick bit of reading and it seems like red light is efficient, but red and blue light aren’t as effectively picked up by the human eye as green and because each light has a different operating voltage there are some consequences.
From what I read the things that makes white lights more effiecient is they only use blue diodes which probably means less circuitry is needed to operate two sets of alternating diodes and there’s less difficulties going from higher frequency (aka higher energy) to low via filters. Hence efficient green light, blue light and red light.
- Comment on lightbulbs 3 days ago:
White lamps are only for looking for things we lost while operating under warm lamps. Also for when doing more than 1 thing in the kitchen.
- Comment on [deleted] 4 days ago:
The federation will make lemmy a slippery target because as threads has shown us you can add a compromised server and people will block the instance or if it gets annoying enough admins will defederate it.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
Being blocked has never hurt so much.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
“buy a gun” is the 1776 line. You can’t really think that offering the same exact advice as fascists is actually effective, do you?
Go ahead and block me. Imagine the kind of trite bullshit I’ll miss out on.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
You never addressed my first post. You literally did a “how you train with gun without buy guy” gotcha thing then just never addressed it. You still havent addressed it, truth be told.
So again, you’re just responding to shit. Its not even new bullshit. I’m just saying the same thing over and over again in different ways. “Buy a gun” is an overprescribed oversimplified conclusion and the reason you didn’t connect it to kent state is not because it would be “boring” but because its trite “go out and vote” type bullshit.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
You said the magic platitude. If somebody put “go vote” at the bottom of the kent state shooting I would also have issues.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
You’re clearly just reiterating your belief in gun ownership and not addressing anything. “Buying a gun” is the tankie version of libs saying “go vote”. Solves nothing, they say it will fix everything. Might help in a very niche scenario that nobody disputes but is so ridiculously overprescribed as to be a useless platitude.
If you’re actively hunting notable fascists that’s totally different than just “buying a gun”. That is a very specific type of gun use and like the kirk shooting was somewhat tragic because the kid that shot him will be going to prison. He bartered a lot more than a few bucks for that outcome.
If like a couple dozen people started doing that the fascist movement would likely lose most its notable members in a year.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
There’s 1.5 guns per person in the USA, but we also have the largest prison population per capita in the world.
I can’t name an authoritarian that started by disarming people. My guess would be there comes a point where disarming the populace happens in authoritarian process as part of “disarming the enemy”. When the enemy is the public, you disarm all of them.
So succesful authoritarians eventually just reach the point where the public is the enemy. They either get there by killing people or imprisoning them or starving them.
In the US they’re making housing unaffordable. You sell your gun to pay rent, problem solved for the wealthy. There’s much higher death rates for homeless people. There have been a number of stats that say the US has similar death rates to societies in civil wars.
If guns were used as a solution I think we’d see more sherriffs and deputies being shot during evictions.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
I clearly went too far because I was satirizing your mischaracterization of other people’s arguments that you really didn’t address but said you did (powerful obama giving a medal to obama meme energy).
I’m obviously more of a syndicalist. Buying “a” gun won’t do anything meaningful in and of itself. We need some people to buy a lot of guns and ammo. Not everybody needs to buy a gun, there’s more guns than people here as it is. The gun threshold, if anything has already been reach. If it gets to the guns mattering we’ve already lost a thousand battles.
We need lots of people thinking about each other. We need people thinking about things like food, water, waste, etc. Like the US government has never caved because somebody shot a bullet at them. They cave because airports get shutdown, because trash stops being collected. The guns help if it goes further, but the step before the guns is the determinate on whether the guns will work or not.
Like a bunch of military drones come through your door you won’t even have the opportunity to kill a single fascist. You’re just dead, killed by a guy essentially playing a video game. A missile is the same thing. There’s no heroic fantasy where just owning a gun lets people takedown a fascist.
My main real issue is the one size fits all prescription. Buy a gun is just so overly simplistic and dumb.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
Thanks debate-me-bro so glad to have you on my side. I can’t wait for the glorius revolution where we all look at the guns on our mantles and jack off to them.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
You ruined the entire post by ending it with a poorly thought out conclusion. “Buy more ovaltine” level of dumb at the end. All you have to do to change my mind is edit the ending to something not as dumb.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
Yeah, I agree, you really fucked up the ending to an otherwise good post.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
Are you telling them they should buy like 10 boxes of ammo and store them in different locations in case they lose access to a location?
No you just tell everyone to “buy a gun” like its a magic ward. You downvote comments that say “that’s not enough”
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 4 days ago:
This comes down to ammo. if you have a bunch of guns they’re going to be useful until it runs out of ammo. If you are caching huge amounts of ammo and guns then yes that’s useful as long as you or your allies keep control of it. And caching ammo is harder than just buying a gun.
Like if your “military” is providing .223 ammo that .308 rifle isn’t going to be too useful for very long.
The consumerist stuff isn’t “bad” its just “not useful” to the point I’d say its “deliberate misdirection”.