To be fair the casinos are a pretty low bar, but yeah…

Nah, that’s Clint’s great(x15) grandfather, Ea-Nasir

Ooh, interesting! Perhaps if you cooled the top and heated the bottom quickly enough? The biggest problem is that the convective drag needs to be high enough to cause actual subduction. In my Earth Science class, I just add mica powder to water, heat it from below, and show them Rayleigh-Benard convection cells.

We do get cracks. They’re the divergent plate boundaries. Water and ice just flow on time scales far too dissimilar to make an appropriate rate model at the cracks.

As a teacher, I cannot tell you how much this changed my life. I just spew their random shit right at them, totally straight-faced, with a painful degree of enunciation. They do not say those words again in my presence. Their cringe feeds me. I also find it helpful to try to get them to define each term, in excruciating detail, then I destroy the word for them.

Well, yes and no. The pH scale follows the hydrogen ion concentration, but specifically in aqueous media. The reason 7 is in the “middle” of the scale is because the natural dissociation of water sits at equilibrium at 10^-7 M H+ at 298K, IIRC. So perturbations naturally just displace that specific equilibrium, so it absolutely is normative to water.

Option 31: Water. Ever seen how much damage an incompressible fluid can do when it cavitates?

Haha, the Hammer of Angantyr.

deleted by creator

America doesn’t exactly have a great track record when overthrowing central american governments…

Don’t forget feudalism and slavery… A lot of feudalism and slavery…

Hey, sure, singlet fluorine is real bad, but even diatomic fluorine is only barely less reactive than singlet.

You just can’t handle the sheer bulk of his pecs.

Bold of you to assume that people are, in general, self-aware.

ETA: Especially in the US.

I commented some of this in response to a popular comment below, but since you asked for general impressions:

I take this as an anti-natalist statement. Anti-natalism has some implications of nihilism for those already born, which is to say: If I think it’s unethical or wrong to have children, due to the suffering inherent in living a life (or caused by the negative externalities of reproducing), does that logically imply that I must blame my own parents for my conception, and wish never to have existed? (though not, necessarily to end my own life, of course, as that would bring further suffering)

If we are not going to be nihilist, and instead choose a more utilitarian approach with a cost-benefit analysis, to what extent does the added value of reproduction (from your effect on the future increasing through genetic propagation, fulfilled biological imperative, and any derived joy from interaction with the birthed individual) outweigh the potential loss of quality-adjusted life years from health implications of reproduction (especially for the mothers)? Is the risk of negative outcomes high enough to resolve not to reproduce?

I definitely see your point, though I took this as an anti-natalist joke, not a refutation of “It’s a Wonderful Life”.

I’m inclined to wonder at what point the arguments of anti-natalism must be weighed against the nihilistic implications on those already born?

Even better: certain comics written and drawn by citizens of the US.

Por que no los dos?

Ah, I got one who just repeated that same thing three times, then wrote me a bad poem when requested. It was… Enlightening

Jesus, seriously? Think I can get it to write me a poem about onions? I caught one just a couple days ago. How do you even know?