Honestly, for how much fresh water they hold, I’m surprised how small their watershed is.

Wheat, rice, barley, rye, corn, millet… Even bamboo is grass!

Well done grass. You really won this round.

Totally agree. The general concept of calculus is pretty straightforward. The implementation of calculus is an exercise of algebra.

Love your optimism

Oops my bad, it’s been a while. I thought the Hamiltonian used quaternions, but I guess that’s just complex numbers.

You think one imaginary number is crazy? Just wait till you learn about quaternions. One real number and 3 imaginary numbers forming a four dimensional coordinate system. It’s the basis for quantum mechanics and most video game engines. Who thinks of this shit?

Hey, thanks for your concern. I’m asking tons of questions, don’t worry. Unfortunately the last 3 keepers of this code are no longer around to ask, thus the staring at code.

I honestly needed to hear this today, so thank you. I’m at work trying to work out someone else’s uncommented code and have just been staring at it mumbling to myself. I’m new to the position so I’m anxious my new coworkers will think I’m just dicking around… This is the validation I needed. Thanks everyone!

Where can I find the high res image?

You’re right. I was being very Ameri-centric. I subconsciously interchange free speech and the first amendment even though they are not equal.

I do believe that individuals and private institutions should have this right to react though. I don’t agree with how it was used in this situation, but I absolutely believe the hospital should have the right to terminate someone based on the opinions they openly share.

If this same employee was sharing an anti-vax opinion I would want the hospital to be able to remove them from the role.

That is not what free speech means.

Free speech means the government cannot prohibit free speech. A private institution can take any lawful action they want in retaliation/reaction.

I agree that it really sucks that saying something true can get you fired, but this isn’t an infringement of the first amendment.

The interesting thing about the court is their power comes from our belief in their legitimacy. They don’t have any repercussions if the executive and legislature completely ignores their rulings.

It’s a double edged sword. If they allow this to happen, democracy crumbles under a new admin. If they do anything to deter authoritarians getting into power is technically anti-democratic too.

Either this admin undermines the belief in democracy by stopping an authoritarian administration to participate in elections or they allow the authoritarians to run and hope the electorate aren’t complete idiots (in a voting system rigged towards the authoritarians via the electoral college).

It is a politically savvy and ethically correct move. Really nice when those line up.

The argument I’m making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don’t have the capacity to make chemical reactions.

An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don’t want it, it’s a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It’s still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).

You make a good point. I should have said “things in the plasma state” should not be considered chemicals.

Hydrogen and Helium are elements, I guess it depends on what your definition of a chemical is.

The reason I’m saying plasma is not a chemical is because it is too energetic to make atom to atom bonds which I feel is the basis for chemistry. If something cannot interact chemically I feel we should not consider it a chemical.

Please note that I did not look up any formal definitions, just expressing my reasoning for my argument. (Aka I’m probably wrong).

I think plasma isn’t a chemical since the elements can’t form molecules. So the sun and lightning aren’t chemicals.

Humans gotta human!

I get the sentiment, but this is a pretty strawman argument.