davidagain
@davidagain@lemmy.world
- Comment on fuckery 3 days ago:
So now we have both irrational and fractional fucks, we have all real fucks, and since we can have “twisted fuck” we can rotate any fuck through any angle and we have the entire complex fuck plane.
- Comment on Mushrooms 1 week ago:
I love this post. Thank you.
- Comment on Womp womp 2 weeks ago:
I don’t know why Janet thought that the working conditions would be nice at the evil laboratory. It’s not exactly evil to take good care of your employees now, is it?
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 2 weeks ago:
So sorry, there’s a typo in your second sentence and I can’t figure out what you meant to say.
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 2 weeks ago:
There wasn’t any way he could have communicated this that the Torygraph wouldn’t turn into “Strarmer lied and broke his promises to working people”. Saying it the precise way doesn’t make for good campaign slogans.
I suspect they planned this. If he had said “we won’t raise income tax and we won’t raise employee national insurance contributions”, he’d be giving a massive hint as to what he was planning, and the inevitable interview question would be about employer contributions and he wouldn’t be able to rule them out, and then all the headlines would be about “Starmer promised to not raise national insurance but now he’s let on that he’s planning to after all” and all the news would be about Labour’s tax rises and all this arguing would be happening before the election. A bit of ambiguity and headline management is unfortunately necessary.
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 3 weeks ago:
Your claim to be a worker because you did half an hour’s work in a month for a landlord’s income that’s so large you can afford to discount it by £300 a month isn’t the winning argument you think it is.
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 3 weeks ago:
Then your income wouldn’t be affected in any real way by raising taxes on those shares and getting cross that Starmer taxing unearned income is affecting you badly is bothincorrect and missing the point.
Starmer is raising tax on unearned income instead of working people’s taxes, which is very fair for a change, and you’re splitting hairs over definitions of who counts as workers. You’re so missing the point.
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 3 weeks ago:
Why are you so cross about this? He only means that he’ll tax their unearned income a bit more, and if they really are working people out won’t affect them much.
The extent to which it affects workers is the extent to which they aren’t workers.
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 3 weeks ago:
If Starmer suggested taxing football income you would be being a bit daft if you claimed that it was going to hurt the guy you just replied to on the grounds that he earned fifty quid from football.
“But he’s a worker too and he’s not rich and you promised not to tax him” is sillier than saying that he isn’t covered by the promise to not raise taxes on working people.
That’s because (and this is the bit that’s not quite got through to you somehow yet) the vast, vast, vast majority of his income is from working, not from football.
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 3 weeks ago:
But if he said “income from owning shares isn’t eligible for PAYE taxation and therefore isn’t covered by a pledge to not increase taxes on workers’ earnings” he wouldn’t have a headline and you would be accusing him of talking like a politician and breaking promises.
But no, he was asked this in the context of some disingenuous question like “bbbut you promised not to raise taxes on working people, and this will hurt working people, aren’t people with a hardworking fast food day job and a tiny bit extra from a few shares or renting out their spare bedroom just to make ends meet exactly the working people you promised not to raise taxes on?”
And Starmer says no, and now we have a headline because a bunch of shareholders who are experts at hoarding money because it’s all they really care about are as pissed as they ever get because tHe GovErNmunT iS tAkiN aLL MY mUnnY. It’s the daily telegraph, for goodness sake. When did they ever care about ordinary people’s finances?!
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 3 weeks ago:
Owning a house isn’t a job but maintaining one is.
I think you just agreed with each other a little bit.
- Comment on Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’ 3 weeks ago:
Thank you.
- Comment on Veggie 3 weeks ago:
Nope. It falls into the same category as milk or eggs.
Now if you’re vegan for ethical reasons because you object to the exploitation of animals, you might make an exception on the grounds that cum is usually very enthusiastically given, but then again free range dairy cows are always very enthusiastic about milking time too, so you’ll have to be a bit more nuanced than that and include informed consent or something.
Glad we could talk.
- Comment on Veggie 3 weeks ago:
Veggie, but not vegan.
- Comment on Wednesday it is, my dudes. 3 weeks ago:
Fin fact: Most frogs don’t say ribbit, but one of the earliest film sound libraries included a frog that does say ribbit, and so that sound is the sound of a frog in many films and television programs, but not in nature documentaries which record their own audio.
So much of the English speaking world, far, far more broadly than the spread of that type of frog, think frogs typically say ribbit.
If you watch a nature documentary about frogs, you’ll hear a vast array of different sounds, and this map will make much more sense.
- Comment on How come people who are against abortion are in favor of the death penalty? Kind of seems like a contradicition/ 3 weeks ago:
They want men to choose who lives or dies. They absolutely do not want women to be in charge of anything. That’s why no exceptions in the case of rape and incest. A man made a decision, they don’t want a woman to have the power to reverse it.
- Comment on ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 4 weeks ago:
Ah, thank you. I wasn’t sure. I am sure I don’t want it going the wrong way up my personals.
- Comment on ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 4 weeks ago:
I find that when you sign up for lemmy, you very much underestimate the extent to which the community is going to be invested in you sticking your dick in grape.
It’s not a complaint, really, and it feels supportive, in a way, but it’s definitely not what I was expecting. I mean, the whole area of soft fruit isn’t really a theme I was considering exploring in any kind of sexual way, if you can appreciate where I’m coming from.
- Comment on ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 4 weeks ago:
Sounds painful. Like gallstones, but backwards. On the plus side, probably less scratchy. On the minus side, maybe more citric acid.
- Comment on ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 4 weeks ago:
Dude, I don’t mean to boast, but honestly, I think my dick is just WAY too big. Like, I would DESTROY that grape instantly if I tried. It’s not just a trick of the camera angle, it just is that big. Honestly, I don’t even need to get out a measuring tape to tell you that even with a massive grape, it’s just not going to fit.
- Comment on ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 4 weeks ago:
The grapes? I can never tell when a grape wants some action. My whole life, I’ve missed every single signal. Well, that, or the grapes just don’t find me attractive, like, EVER.
- Comment on ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 4 weeks ago:
I… I don’t think I can.
- Comment on I know what I got. No low balls 1 month ago:
I read the title and became a lot confused. It doesn’t help that the US calls those weiners.
- Comment on Microsoft retires WordPad after 28 years — app no longer available as of Windows 11 24H2 1 month ago:
In the nineties it produced the cleanest .rtf output of all the editors. Word makes toxic .rtf that unnecessarily turns formatting off and on at every line break and elsewhere too.
If it weren’t for wordpad I wouldn’t have learned how to output .rtf from my code.
RIP WordPad.
- Comment on Microsoft retires WordPad after 28 years — app no longer available as of Windows 11 24H2 1 month ago:
Now I had a mischievous long chuckle on the bus and the old ladies near me are a bit worried about me!
- Comment on 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 1 month ago:
You, sir or madam etc, are a genius.
- Comment on 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 1 month ago:
You clamp that ham! Go for it! We’re right behind you. Figuratively, that is, not literally. Literally would be crossing a line.
- Comment on Smart 1 month ago:
You’re very right.
- Comment on Smart 1 month ago:
2D: If you draw a perhaps wobbly circle shape (loop) on the ground, it has an inside that you can colour in. If your loop is elastic, it can contract to be all in a tiny heap. Topologists call this “simply connected”.
3D: The water on your bath is also simply connected. Your elastic loop, whatever its shape, can shrink back down to tiny.
2D: The surface of your tennis ball is simply connected because any elastic loop on its surface can shrink to nothing, but the surface of your ring donut isn’t, because you could cut your elastic and wrap it arround the donut and it couldn’t shrink because the donut would stop it. Ants living on the surface of the donut might not immediately realise it wasn’t simply connected because they’d never drawn a big enough loop to find out that it couldn’t be shrunk.
3D: The solid donut is also not simply connected, because the ring could contain an elastic band that goes all the way around the ring and back to the start, and it couldn’t shrink to nothing because it would have to leave the donut.
2-Manifolds: a 2-manifold is some kind of surface that doesn’t have an edge and when you look up close it looks like it’s flat-ish. You could make it by sticking lots of tiny sheets of rubber flat to each other but there’s not allowed to be an edge. The simplest 2-manifolds are an infinite plane, the surface of a ball and the surface of a donut. The small ones are called closed. The technical reason for that is to do with not having any edges but still being finite, but you can think of closed to mean finite.
Manifolds may not be as the srrm: If you live in a 2-manifold you might not immediately realise that it’s ball surface and you might not realise it’s a donut surface. If you have a computer game from yesteryear where when you go off the top of the screen you come back on at the same angle and position on the bottom of the screen, and the same for left and right, that’s actually got the same layout as the surface of a donut. To help you see that, imagine your screen was triple widescreen and made of rubber. Roll it up to glue the top to the bottom and then glue the two ends of the tube to each other. You haven’t changed the game play at all but now you can see it’s the surface of a donut shape.
3-manifolds: anything that looks like 3D space up close is a 3-manifold. The simplest 3-manifolds are an ordinary infinite 3D space, a 3-sphere, which is like the 3D version of the surface of a ball, but it’s hard to imagine the 4D ball it’s wrapped around, and the 3D version of the computer game.
The universe: It looks simply connected, but we can’t see that directly, because maybe there’s a very long loop we haven’t gone on yet that gets back where you started without being shrinkable. This is hard to imagine, but it could be like being in the 3D version of the computer game where there’s a long loop that can’t shrink because it goes through one side of the screen and comes out the other before coming back. It can’t be shrink at all, especially not to nothing. The universe is a 3-manifold.
The Poincare conjecture says that every simply connected “closed” (finite) 3-manifold is essentially the same as the 3-sphere. If ALL your loops shrink, no matter how big, and the universe is finite and has no end wall, then it’s the 3 sphere.
- Comment on Smart 1 month ago:
And 3 to 25 bunches is between 30 and 250 apples gone bad, so that A few bad apples could spoill half of the apples, and there you have the problem with the police force, especially of the USA where officially it’s not a crime to drive a car whilst having dark skin tone but you can definitely still be summarily executed for it.