yetAnotherUser @ yetAnotherUser @discuss.tchncs.de

Hi!

---

Read more

Posts

10

Comments

1,404

Joined

2 yr. ago

It can result in some rather clunky terms though.

And frankly, "fructose foster parent" is cheating. That's on the same level as, say, "sugar step daddy".

A blanket for a blanket and the whole world goes... cold?

Why do they need to be alliterations though? I mean, sugar daddy isn't one either.

They shouldn't give a Fuchs.

To me, chances seem high he had some mental health problems, just like the "psychosis encouraged by ChatGPT" murder case some time ago. Substitute ChatGPT for Russian intelligence services on Telegram and you could get exactly this.

I mean, he tried committing suicide right after the murders. That doesn't sound like a well adjusted individual.

I

all small

I think not, that we the same definition of "ALL" have.

This is exactly this, on that me my C2 English certificate prepared has.

I question me but: Should you substantives like in German or like in English bigwrite?

Warum hast du den Shrek-Pustearbeit-Bildtextbuchstabe¹ genommen? Ich sehe die Verbindung nicht...

I cannot respond to everything but this point strikes me:

pretty harmless observation

In a vacuum, yes, these are harmless observation. When you look at the broader picture though, you will find strong connections to rejecting all of science and to the far right.

Anytime someone mentions astrology (at least online, I do not know anyone who believes in it IRL) it is just a matter of time until they talk about the COVID vaccine and a supposed "New World Order" by the IWF, Jews and whatnot.

At least that's the case in Germany. You can read a bit more here, you may want to use machine translation. Article published by the Federal Agency for Civic Education.

https://www.bpb.de/themen/rechtsextremismus/dossier-rechtsextremismus/550441/rechtsextreme-esoterik/

Knarzen? Das machen doch Türen und das ist so ein hartes Geräusch. Beim Schnee ist es doch viel weicher!

Yes, that is why I mentioned the IAU's definition was more specific.

Very large? Enough mass to have a round shape.

Dwarf everything nearby? Clear out its orbit by colliding with/capturing/ejecting shit.

How else would they manage the 12 billion euro per year in church tax from their members which the government collects for them for free?

Not to forget the 600 million euro in yearly damag payments for condemning large swaths of church owned property (e.g. entire cities) ~200 years ago due to Napoleon.

I propose a better definition:

Planets are very large objects orbitting a star that dwarf everything nearby

I'm pretty sure this is the intent of the IAU's definition. It's just more specific.

Do you mean the asteroids at the Lagrangian points? Every single planet has asteroids there because math/physics dictates those points to be stable. Jupiter has the most at its points because it's the largest planet.

Same with Neptune cleaning its orbit: It has collided with every single thing in its orbit EXCEPT those that synced their orbits to Neptune. An object that is gravitationally dominated by a single planet should not be a planet under any definition.

Sources because I had to read into your claims and I'm no astrophysicist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_trans-Neptunian_object

N+1 men, obviously

Republican's response:

A little bit of Venezuela in my life
A little bit of Greenland by my side
A little bit of Cuba is all I need
A little bit of Canada is what I see
A little bit of Mexico in the sun

Neither interpretation is wrong.

PEMDAS (or whatever you call it) is not a law and makes no mention of implicit multiplication. My Casio calculators rates implicit multiplication higher than explicit multiplication and division by the way.

Here's another ambiguity:

Is 2½ equal to 1 or 2.5?

Depending on how you enter it, my Casio calculator returns either.

• If you create a normal fraction and then put a number in front (by going left with the arrows) it will result in 1
• Only if you use the dedicated "fraction with number in front" button will it result in 2.5

No country actually declares war anymore. From Wikipedia:

Declarations of war have been exceedingly rare since the end of World War II.[3][4] Scholars have debated the causes of the decline, with some arguing that states are trying to evade the restrictions of international humanitarian law (which governs conduct in war)[4] while others argue that war declarations have come to be perceived as markers of aggression and maximalist aims.

That part of the US Constitution is irrelevant nowadays and should long have been updated to require any foreign (or domestic) military operations to be first approved by Congress, not just declaring war. Doesn't make your point of Congress granting ever more rights to the President irrelevant though.

Except to join Bibliotik you need to have really specific friends :(