that’s not how that works, we cant regrow (most) vital organs (liver says hi) because of “engineering problems” not because evolution is random. we personify adaptations to understand them, it can lead to issues but yours is a massive overcorrection.

you’ve got it. the period of the sun up/sun down cycle would be the orbital period.

perhaps you could read the article, but the jist is that in this economic system the good product was so good that people bought it and then sales dried as nobody needed another, rendernng the company bankrupt.

programmer linguistigs is certainly something to behold.

read where?

this was hilarious lol

not exactly, the pressure in a cabin varies a lot and by altitude. it’s not the same as the atmosphere outside the plane, put popping ears alone prove the pressure is not static at sea level.

neither are jerks, they simply are what they are trying to survive hostile environments best they can with what they have.

it’s a wasp, it is hungry.

smith, cobbler, tanner. look new names exist somehow, naming people after characters in stories is as old as names.

if this observation is even accurate then an alternative explanation is just that people in relationships are more used to being emotionally available, more recently have practiced “relationshipping”, and have a larger social circle.

fortunately math problems are administered in the context of the class, so it will be pretty obvious that it’s in the complex plane.

I don’t know snough about the crowdstrike stuff in particular to have much of an opinion on it in particular, but I will say that software devs/engineers have long skirted py without any of the accountability present n other engineering fields. If software engineers want to be called engineers, and they should, then this may be an excellnt opportunity to introduce acccountability associations and ethics requirements which prevent or reduce company systemic issues and empower se to enforce good practices.

Datas is correct if you are referring to multiple distinct populations of data. Which in this case works.

Yeah this is the key point in all of this. You can speculate forever, until you can confirm it your confidence will be very low.

Re: edit - you should actually read the article on what tone policing is in their conception and what is harmful about it, not all being called out for dickish replyguy behavior is tone policing. Frustration and aggression can be warranted, and is fine to express, but when all you’re doing is arguing with no cogent point (see: yelling into the void) and misinterpreting what someone is saying to the point of absurdity, aggression is being actively harmful to the discussion. That’s just being an ass for catharsis.

And again, the point was to point out that the person you’re responding to did not say what you claimed they did, and that the addition about labour was helpful. You can be as frustrated and aggressive as you want about that, but this whole discussion could’ve been in agreement, you both appear to agree with each other on the meat of the politics.

Huh?

I mean… you are literally instead of discussing the politics of the UK, actively choosing to be antagonistic.

And antagonistic in a way that I have literally no idea what you’re even trying to say, beyond wildly thrashing into the void.

Sounds like they were just hoping things would at least improve, which means not get actively worse nor remain strictly the same, but does not mean things become absolutely good and fixed. You’re the one putting “fundamental changes to how things are run” as their claim.

I found their comment quite helpful, and the content of the addition that labour may not do much better was also useful and fit in the framework they gave.

I don’t think the aggression was warranted or helpful, and only served to stagnate the discussion.

The regulation appears to be based on the area of the plot, not the dimensions. By assigning explicitly annotated dimensions it can confuse the intended message more than using a goofy but useful analogy.

Interesting! Thank you.

Neat that the dorsal plane bends, I could see that disagreeing with the body orientation planes