The 7th lesson will be revealed in our FREE three-part email course.

I also shave with a safety razor/shavette and spend about twice as long for a close shave as only the first pass. Also being the type worried for time, I’ve clocked myself and typically end up at just under 4 minutes including warm-up, post-shave creams, brushing, and oiling.

You go once with the grain, once across it (90 degrees) and then once against it but with a lower angle than the others (so you don’t cut/irritate unnecessarily). Lather before each pass as per usual. The time to get everything set up and work up the first lather is longer than going another two passes.

Edit to add: I shave like this about every other day, but let it go over weekends, or other times I resent my worksona. I have chosen shaving gear to make it fun though, with a nice brush & bowl, a nice smelling shaving soap, etc. My best trick was to find a better suited razor blade, Dorco Platinum, makes it easy, fun and lasts me two weeks before having to change. I’m sure other brands are great too, that’s just the best one I have available.

I’m trying to grow out a beard, so I don’t trim it down, but shape it once a week with some scissors and a comb.

Back when I couldn’t be bothered, I mostly grew it wild, brushed and shaped it 1-2 times/week, and trimmed it down in length every few months. Nowadays we have barbershops around and I can have a professional style it while I get a haircut.

Tl;dr:

Bathtubs started small due to size constraints of rooms, but got smaller because it’s cheaper to manufacture and handle smaller tubs.

#savedyouaclick

Could be what you describe. But all those things are also hallmarks of a superstitious mind, especially if under duress or long indoctrination.

Not being allowed to question or reconcile things causes internal stress, not being allowed to express certain emotions and thoughts also adds to it. It doesn’t help that many of them are radicalised into driving an agenda.

I’m not expecting to live long enough for that kind of drama, so I simply blocked them. If they’re abusive, please report them before blocking, they might be dragging all of Lemmy down and not just this thread.

I agree, but a lot of parties try to co-opt the word to mean other things, which I find less useful.

A quick look at their posting history shows that they’re indistinguishably close to a troll. Their response as well.

And how do you know that? Through magic?

If you have issue with me using only 12 - 18 centuries old definitions, I welcome you to have this talk in pre-christian times, although I might be busy then.

I do agree. I was trying to match the poetic language of OP and convey that we have no proof of supernatural or imagined claims, and thus the narrow sliver of naturalistic reality is where we must investigate phenomena. But you know, in a way a symbolic minded troll would understand.

Because magic has in common verbiage typically been used to describe phenomena we don’t know the mechanism behind.

And all those other things we do understand the mechanism behind. Along the way to understand how we figured out standards that elevate physical phenomena from imagined ones, and slowly we found that there’s very little room left for the unknowable to affect our reality.

So if the word magic is to have any distinct meaning, there’s only left “that which isn’t real enough to affect us”.

But you’re of course free to redefine words as feels useful to you. I find flying, quantum teleportation, and cognition magical, but that more describes the wonder and awe of the inner workings of my world, rather than if it’s real or not.

Written with ChatGPT no doubt

I’ve gotten sets with nigiri and maki in several cities around Japan. I guess my experience and yours differ.

In my European country you’ll order sushi as nigiri at any cornershop sushi place.

It’s most often sold as a set, where there’s typically 4 pieces of some roll with three ingredients and nori on the outside (but variations are not uncommon).

It’s quite close to what I’ve had in Japan. Although fish quality is very different.

Heat is electromagnetic radiation - photons, sound is mechanical displacement - phonons.

They mostly propagate the same due to being waves, in most other respects they are very different.

Heat convection is an entirely separate process where heat radiation is aided by the movement of the surrounding medium. Where it would otherwise heat up it’s environment, convection keeps the environment from heating up. Compare coffee in a thermos (very little convection) to a cup you’re blowing on (significant convection); more air movement - more cooling.

Also, destructive interference does not at all work like that.

Maybe a more useful analogy could be that waves have like walking animations, where in part of the animation they go up, and in another part they go down. Destructive interference happens when a wave in its’ “up” phase crosses a wave in it’s “down”, meaning the resulting movement looks like nothing. The waves don’t however interact in any way, and will continue on their way and on their own animation cycles.

The shifting and heating parts are technically true but require very specific circumstances, enough so that I’m more prone to believe it’s another misunderstanding of the physics behind this. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, I’m sure you’re right

Unfortunately I don’t agree.

Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

There’s a relevant physics anomaly called a Helmholtz resonator, or more broadly waveform interference.

Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

Lol. Check your privilege.

A. Do a carbon footprint analysis of your life, if it’s above 2,5 tons coe/year you’re a net burden on the planet. My country is as well, although considerably lower than the US.

B. It is possible for you to be a paragon of environmentalism and still live in a country with inefficient systems for water, infrastructure, zoning, industry and food production. Not to mention live in a culture of unsustainable lifestyle. Many Chinese or Indian persons are simply too poor to have a major impact on the environment, but their national industrial practices drive up the average pollution to levels comparable to the US (although still lower). Most US people aren’t as poor, and also have shitty industry standards, and also the means to change that without losing your standing internationally.

C. Multiple countries are shitty, in fact most of the non-developing world countries are a net burden.

D. As opposed to the other countries at the top, the US has had the economy, data, and access to resources to be able to something about it for generations, whereas most have had half the time and considerable need of modernising.

E. The US is much larger than the other countries, and could with quite simple measures make great impact and help pressure other great polluters.

Graphene, the superconductor hoax, the quantum electron model all would like to disagree.

Even though you might not need to calculate anything with it, it certainly applies in your daily life. (although the electron model maybe mostly for high school students)