You should examine your definition of intuitive. Yes, technically nothing is intuitive it’s just based on what you know because intuition is also based on what you’re used to.

By your logic, if you compare a machine that powers on by pressing a big glowing red button labeled “ON” and one that turns on by you performing the haka in front of a camera while reciting a Shakespeare sonnet backwards you might say that there is no “more intuitive” way to turn on a machine, just one you know better and can perform quicker!

You aren’t reading what you’re replying to because I said in a previous post that it’s easy to get used to Celsius and fahrenheit and there’s no difference to either and I also already said that Celsius is better for science because it’s based on water.

Everything you said can be said about Celsius scale as well.

At this point you’re just lying or further proving that you didn’t even read the post you tried to respond patronizingly to. I said that the Fahrenheit scale is intuitive because it’s a 0-100 scale which is similar to other scales we use all the time and works well for our base 10 counting system being a scale essentially between two powers of 10. Neither of that can be said for Celsius and that’s so obvious I think you just didn’t read it before replying.

And hell, on top of all this, I think we should all switch to using Celsius! Because as I mentioned it’s easy to grasp both scales and using Celsius makes understanding a lot of science easier which I think is the only real argument in this arbitrary choice between the two! But I’m out here explaining the use of Fahrenheit because people here can’t grasp my explanation for why people might use it and are acting like they’ve got the defeater to a post they didn’t even read!

Never said either one can’t be intuitive, just that the scale of farenheit has a precedence outside of it being an arbitrary temperature measurement by being a scale that goes from about 0 - 100.

If you had never used either scale and some one asked: “which is more intuitive, a temperature scale where -10 is really cold and 40 is really hot or one where 0 is really cold and 100 is really hot?” I know which one I would pick because I’ve done things before like calculate percentages and work in a base 10 system so it makes sense for the scale to be between two orders of magnitude.

I disagree that either would be just as intuitive. Fahrenheit being 0=cold and 100=hot is intuitive because there are a lot of things we do in the world that exist on a scale of 0 - 100. Percentages, just off the bat. Also, fahrenheit has a higher degree of fidelity in the temperature range that we use.

Celsius’s general temperature scale is like -10 - 40 which is absolutely not intuitive because it doesn’t look like any other scale we use as humans. I agree that we get used to Celsius fast and it’s a fine it’s not like it’s super confusing (and Celsius is so much more useful scientifically).

Is there a reason we haven’t tried this narcotic fungi?

Shrooms are great, why not try other 'gi?

Peloton is designed for rich people. They don’t say it explicitly because thar ruins the illusion, but the bike is meant to be a status distinction. You may only own it if you’re eager to be seen as someone who spends too much money on an exercise bike.

Yeah we’re baffled about how kids get sucked into worshipping Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, but I remember a brief time in my life when I thought Steve Jobs was the greatest and that he singlehandedly invented the iPhone with a rusty pair of pliers and gumption.

Not me, but it would be fun to live 3 times.

Maybe, but if we rode on sharks to get around I’m sure the statistic would be different.

I think romance in fiction is really hard to do well because you somehow have to get across the fact that every romance is different, unique, and often doesn’t make too much sense except to the people involved.

A “realistic” romance can be realistic to the author but be filled with very idiotic choices that makes the reader find the romance not realistic at all

Similarly, an “ideal” romance might be written as perfect for the author and certain readers feel it’s the least romantic thing in the world.

This looks like a lose-lose but all I’m trying to say is that regardless of what you pick, to me, the most important aspect is getting across that this relationship is entirely between the two characters and difficult to get across to the reader. That’s why, to me, romances in stories often work when they aren’t the main plot as it lets the reader fill in the gaps of how that romance evolved.

Philosophy is determining that there is, probably, a cat in the room. And science is using a flashlight to find it.

Capitalism is a form of economic organization, fascism is a form of government (or just a form of social control), antithetical to democracy or socialism.

Well you can’t walk down ol’ one-corpse alley and not expect a corpse there.

Your TL;DR is about as long as your comment.

Naw, cause they’re a nerd-ass nerd.

They’ll use it when they take a deeper look into something because their curiosity that we fostered was piqued and they discover something new and interesting about our world, adding it to our collective knowledge.

https://youtu.be/ql5_q_33wqY?si=S04ScBNiNe5ecI1p

Wife wants coke, a brick of hash, bottle of pills, some meat and some sausage. Kid wants a sandwich and some ciggies.

Not to reiterate what other people have said here. But you can make an object 1 meter long by defining that object as 1 meter (hell, you don’t have to, but you can define 1 meter as the length that light travels in a specific amount of time or something silly). Then, to create something two meters long, you can have two of those one-meter lengths. To make something π meters long, you would need infinite precision, that is not true for 1 meter or even 1/3 as you mention later in this thread.

There is no way to divide anything into exactly π length. There is an easy way to divide something into a number that can be expressed as a fraction, such as 1/3, or any fraction you care to come up with, even if it can be represented as .3 repeating.

I mean, you only need 39 digits of pi to calculate the circumference of a circle with a diameter the size of the universe to the width of a hydrogen atom. So no matter how detailed you get it’s impossible to determine if a circles circumference is anywhere close to exactly pi.

To ops point, you could set up your thing theoretically and we can math out that it should be pi. But we could not make that object.

On authority is used to justify the fact that many communist movements of the past turned into brutal dictatorships and that “it’s fine actually that mao starved half of China because you can’t have a revolution without being authoritarian”.

The actual paper is short and kind of stupid. What Engels was arguing in that short essay with a ridiculously outsized influence was that he was technically correct (the best kind) that anarchists are silly because any type of government someone could propose inevitably involves one person imposing their will on another like your quote says.

Really what Engels (who was a prominent communist thinker) was doing was fucking up any attempts at communist organization because now 1/3 of communists think that brutal authoritarianism is based and necessary for a revolution.