FishFace

I have like two servers total and if one breaks I will just start again. It’d take more time to set up terraform than it would to get it working again from a fresh install.

Northern Denmark, yes, but some of the coloured bit is Southern Denmark.

Wikipedia calls it doubtful, though there are sources which say it happened. I’m curious about Denmark though!

When I started living in a shared house I wrote a Python+GTK app to split bills. It worked but it’s shonky as hell. It was my first time writing a database schema!

That’s what I’m saying yes

But id cards, which might actually be useful, are unthinkable!

Could you make the article the URL of the post?

Saying that gravitational waves (which were observed in 2015) are the “cause” of gravity is like saying light is the “cause” of electromagnetism.

Your characterisation of dark matter as “not having been observed” is one of degree and one of terminology. There is evidence that something causes stronger gravitational lensing than can be accounted for by otherwise-observed matter, but this gravitational lensing (alongside other things) is an observation. How then has this phenomenon “not been observed”?

According to what you said, gravity is matter, since gravity exists.

The only matter you’ve proven to exist is your own consciousness, so that’s not saying much.

Since you’ve defined matter to be everything that exists, you must believe that whatever is the explanation for dark matter is matter, since it exists.

So, dark matter is matter?

How do you know you’re made of matter?

In a world where AI can make passable music, it’ll be less and less about maximising cashflow and more and more about fulfilling innate human need.

How would you go about proving the existence of regular matter?

No indeed, which makes you wonder - why would he say such a thing? Well, he didn’t - the canary has reported this dishonestly. (See my other comment for a fuller explanation)

Dishonest article from a dishonest outlet.

The judgment can be read here.

The offence in question is a juror engaging in “conduct from which it may reasonably be concluded that the person intends to try the issue otherwise than on the basis of the evidence presented in the proceedings on the issue,” which is quoted from the Juries Act 1974.

The Canary renders this in its first paragraph as the Judge threatening the jury “if they applied their conscience to a case concerning climate activists.” Applying their conscience is not sufficient for the law in question, and it is not what the judge said; the judge instead “It is a criminal offence for a juror to do anything from which it can be concluded that a decision will be made on anything other than the evidence in the case.” The Canary, and supporters of the appellants, are lying in their public statements about what this case is about, pretending that the judge threatened to convict the jury for acting according to their conscience, instead of doing what he did, which was to warn them that the law prevents them from telling people that they are going to return a verdict according to their conscience instead of according to the evidence.

The reason that law exists is because the rule of law is based on juries finding according to the evidence.

I looked into this (just on Wikipedia). Before granting Mauritius independence, the UK split the territory into Mauritius and the British Indian Ocean Territory in order to have a place to put the base that’s there now. But the UN takes a dim view on such shenanigans and tends to say that such territories should be reconstituted. (See also: controversy over the Partition of India, which was less brazenly self-interested, but very consequential)

So I believe the UN had actually already decided it was no bueno. I don’t know why Mauritius was granted independence though; it was uninhabited when settled by the french, then ceded to Britain after the defeat of Napoleon. I assume expense had something to do with it though, since in the mid 20th centuries many colonies were money pits.

It’s not like algorithms for seeing swears are incapable of inferring then, either

Tale as old as time… If you don’t make your villain a Disney stereotype someone will try to reclaim it. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t successful… but given how rubbish Prevent is, I wouldn’t bank on that either.

Ah yes, equally symbolic of the upper classes: the crown jewels and Waitrose