It’s not the dick, it’s the cowardice we disparage.

This is a problem as well. As the satellites deorbit they vaporise, leaving aluminium oxide nanoparticles (and other metallic gases, volatiles etc) in the atmosphere, destroying ozone and building up over decades.
So it’s not just the light pollution, or the ruining of ground based astronomy. Or even the dangerous amount of clutter polluting LEO, making spaceflight even more risky. Starlink is bad news for the environment, but it’s to be expected since we’ve seen how carelessly spacex have destroyed the ecosystem in Texas.

It’s nice to see you doing this, but you really weren’t the problem in this thread. That account was not posting in good faith. You were immediately accused of spreading misinformation, then when you politely provided evidence, they doubled down both on the sealioning and the name calling. The votes tell the story here and you did well and you did good.

Jesus. I’m not implying anything, everything I’ve said is explicit. Perhaps you’re having a hard time understanding because you’re looking for hidden meaning where none was intended?

The claim was made by the top level commenter, NOT_RICK. The evidence supporting this claim is the news report (and various others in the thread). That is the end of it. If you want to make a new claim, e.g. that this source is lying, then go ahead and do so. With evidence.

What you’re doing is called sealioning and there is no end to it. You wouldn’t accept the evidence unless the man himself came to your house and told you he was Muslim to your face. And then only if people were watching.

How are you that certain? Do you live in a hermetically sealed clean room?

The title is part of the report, moron. There are no special rules that mean you can lie in the title, moron. There are no special rules that mean you have to expand on every detail in the title or else it’s not true, moron.

In America there is free speech and you can always find a politician’s lookalike. In soviet Russia, politician lookalike find you!
In Putin’s Russia? Ehhhh… Dead, all dead. All of them dead. On frontline. Dead lookalikes everywhere. Terrible tragedy.

I knew it!
Thanks amigo/a

I mean, on the one hand, no. It’s not even slang, it’s just a pathetic phenomenon where the users feel forced into using words they don’t want to, even though they aren’t being forced but they cowardishly still do it for fear of actual censorship. But then, on the other hand, my generation’s youth slang includes things like douchecanoe and heckin and live, laugh, love, so I don’t feel in a superior enough position to judge gen z on theirs.

Oh shit! Mexico is indeed pretty blameless, except for the apparent heinous crime of existing next to the USA.
Tell me though, is it true that everything is in sepia there? I only have US-made movies and TV to go off, so of course I’m assuming that’s 100% accurate. Is it still sepia at night? If you fly into Mexico does it flick to sepia instantly or is it more like a slow transition that you hardly notice? Who pays for all the yellow pigment?

Indeed. And the real strokes we were the of had waylong toast a in findings perplopolis intact!

dozen countries like my own

I’m gonna guess… Portugal! I can’t think of anything they’ve done -recently- that’s overtly imperialistic? Ireland?
You’d best not be British, German, French, Italian, Romanian, Czech, Hungarian, Austrian, Polish or Israeli, though.

That’s a good point actually. An extra level of ridiculousness and hypocrisy to this trend of self censorship.
You know what worries me though? It was about 2008ish when I first heard someone say “lol” verbally as a response to a witty comment, and it was a really weird moment for me. She didn’t laugh, she smiled and said “lol”, because she was so used to speaking online. Now it’s pretty normal to hear that. I even do it without realising it.
What worries me is that these awful censorship words will creep into spoken English and people will start saying then out loud. I think I will unalive a little inside when that happens.

It’þ bigoted if you aþk me. Not my fault I have a þpeech impediment.

That’s how we know he’s cleverer than us.

So the subjective part is the question of is he one of the best of all time. Sure, we can have that conversation. But the part where you’re outright wrong is where you exclude him from being remotely close to that conversation.
As a guitarist, Prince has:

• Impeccable musical ear
• Intuitive note selection
• Technical mastery of the instrument
• Perfect timing
• Improvisation so good you couldn’t sit and write better lines
• Riffs for days
• Sold 150000000+ records, in a time when that mattered

I think the above definitely puts him in the running. You might not like it, but he’s up there. I’d rather collaborate with Prince than Eric Clapton, say, and he’s supposed to be one of the greats. I think Knopfler beats Prince quite handily, but I’m not so sure George Harrison was better. (I’m sure George would say Prince was better)

No, you’re going to have to help me. Obviously I’m only in 4th grade. Wtaf are you taking about. .

Oh do fuck off. That’s the gist of what you said. I purposefully didn’t put it in quotes because I was paraphrasing.

Science grad with 10 years engineering experience. I had to turn down a lot of jobs before I found one that didn’t involve killing people. It took two years. I’m paid about half of what I could get if I sold my morals. Totally worth it.

Did you intend this to be paradoxical?

A bit, yes. There’s an inherent paradox in the argument about necessity. Put it another way: if the next technology turns all of your enemies into steam, but as a side effect, also does the same to their families, are you forced to develop it, because the people on the other side of the world will just get there first if you don’t? What if the one after that is super low resource yet it also kills anyone who has ever shaken hands with your enemy? etc etc. I would argue that creating a new weapon, or developing existing ones further is not made more or less moral on the basis that your enemy might be doing it, because if you know your enemy’s mind that well, you could easily defeat them using a slingshot.

This is likely wrong…Some of us would brutally murder each other with sticks and stones if they had nothing better.

Not sure I follow, this seems to be what I was saying. Read it back. The difference is that now we have technology capable of remotely erasing huge populations, and no means whatsoever of keeping it out of the hands of the freaks that invariably take power. It’s therefore immoral to develop weapons because if you are clever enough to know how to do that, you should be clever enough to know how the resulting products will end up being used.

most defense work is not creating the atomic bomb. Most of it is incremental improvements

So the difference between them then is just one of scale. Oppenheimer probably never got a good night’s sleep again in his life, but it’s easy to persuade a thousand people to each do a thousandth of what he did. Then each person is only a thousandth as responsible as Oppenheimer. But each increment is still an evil deed, just a smaller one.
“Concern for man himself and his fate must always constitute the chief objective of all technological endeavors…in order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.” People working on weapons are ignoring, forgetting or equivocating over this simple fact. Good people don’t make bombs and sleep well at night. Find another job, where you can look back at your life’s work and honestly believe you made the world a better place.

Anyway, we agree that psychopathic megalomaniacs are a feature of the human creature. And whether or not they are flying drones, driving tanks, or a leading a hoard of mounted Visigoths at your village, I think most of us would rather remove them as a threat from a safe distance… Like with a missile.

Most of us would prefer our enemies killed at range, without having to look then in the eye, sure. But look at what you’re mixing up here: the psychopathic megalomaniacs who are sitting barking orders a world away from the lethality radii, and the grunts and (invariably) innocent collateral who are atomised inside them.