ContriteErudite

joined 7 months ago
[–] ContriteErudite 3 points 3 days ago

I'll take "Hyperbolic & Catastrophic Exaggerations" for $400, Alex.
I'm pretty sure you're reply is tongue-in-cheek, but that did get me thinking how long it would take to actually destroy the Moon by mining.

Let's say we used mass drivers to launch 1000kg of material from the Moon to the Earth every second, non stop, until the Moon was completely dismantled. The moon has a mass somewhere around 7.35×10^22^ kilograms. Dividing the Moon's mass by the rate of removal, we get Time=7.35×10^19^seconds. Divide that by 35,536,000 seconds in a year, and it would take us about 2.33 trillion years to dismantle the moon.

Considering how the Earth only has, maybe, a billion years until the Sun's natural life cycle makes life on Earth impossible, I'd wager that we're good. Drill baby, drill.

[–] ContriteErudite 22 points 1 week ago

Copper cables are easier to reuse or sell as scrap due to the intrinsic value of the metal value and simple structure. Fiber optic cables are harder to reuse because they require precise handling, expensive connectors, and special training and equipment to splice together properly. Unless thieves steal pre-terminated fiber and handle it with extreme care or take entire spools with a buyer ready, fiber is essentially worthless to them since it can't be melted down and reused like copper.

[–] ContriteErudite 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I loved the game, but for the life of me could not beat Genishiro's lightning phase... I should try it again.

[–] ContriteErudite 3 points 2 weeks ago

Good stuff; reminds me of classic mid-noughties /f/

Anyone know why is the domain blocked by discord?

[–] ContriteErudite 4 points 3 weeks ago

I feel this. There was one time where I was playing metal over my speakers, but I was the only one in the office and I was not playing it loudly. After a while a security guard was doing rounds and asked me "what the hell" I was listening to. "Cattle Decapitation," I said, and they wrinkled their nose like someone shat in the trashcan and went on about how they can't how anyone would like "that stuff" -- I shrugged and said me neither and got back to my work.

[–] ContriteErudite 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I get the Tesla hate, I'm also not a fan of Musk and his antics, but can you share a source that says Tesla are inherently worse in crashes than other vehicles? The NHTSA gives overall 5-star safety ratings to Teslas, the highest score possible; the leader of the NHTSA is notoriously anti-Tesla (because of Musk's antics), and is on record saying that she wants to reign him and the company in (and rightfully so).

From this article: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/business/why-do-people-keep-crashing-teslas/index.html

The Highway Loss Data Institute, a US-based organization funded by the insurance industry, has not found higher crash rates for Tesla vehicles or other EVs more broadly based on overall insurance claims. Teslas do tend to have higher claim costs, though, according to the HLDI.

The article goes on to say that research indicates that the likely cause of a higher rate of EV crashes is drivers 1) not being accustomed to the differences between EV and ICE vehicle handling, and 2) EVs overall having more speed and power than ICE vehicles.

there is a long-established connection between horsepower and the frequency and amount of insurance claims. Fast cars hit things more often and they hit them harder, leading to more – and more severe – crashes. Added to this, EVs lack the usual engine sounds that go along with rapid acceleration and high speeds, so it’s conceivable drivers are less aware of how fast they’re going.

I'm interested in learning more about how EV crashes seem to be worse.

[–] ContriteErudite 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

deleted by creator

If only; that would be some tasty irony for a theology degree-holding judge

[–] ContriteErudite 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The purpose of prison ought to be reconciliation and rehabilitation, not revenge or forced contrition. Many prisoners do feel remorse for their crimes, but unfortunately recidivism is so high (in America) because our socioeconomic and judicial systems are tooled to undermine a parolee's attempts to reintegrate into society, setting them up for failure.

Only in extreme circumstances, i.e. truly sociopathic criminals, should sentences that remove all hope of reintegration or release be issued. True sociopaths are incapable of feeling remorse, no matter how long or under whatever conditions they are kept. They do understand the weight and impact their crimes had on their victims, but they do not care. No amount of coercion will change that. In these fringe cases, I'd argue that giving them the choice between lifelong sequestration or self-inflicted suicide is ostensibly the best solution for everyone.

[–] ContriteErudite 5 points 2 months ago

Ah, a classic. ALF truly is timeless.

[–] ContriteErudite 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

When I was a kid, I was scared of spiders, house centipedes, and heights. On a school trip to a tall building, I was terrified but eventually worked up the courage to look over the edge. The fear disappeared, and I realized that if I could overcome that, maybe I could face other fears too. So, I started learning about the things that scared me; spiders, centipedes, the dark, etc. I found that the more I learned about something, the less frightening they became. For example, house centipedes are harmless, clean, and even help by getting rid of destructive pests. Understanding really helps ease fear. It confuses me that some people seem to want to stay afraid instead of trying to overcome it.

[–] ContriteErudite 18 points 3 months ago

This is just my personal experience, but I think it reflects a larger issue. Younger people were not 'too inconvenienced to actually go out and vote'; they wanted to support the party that they felt aligned most with their values, only to be ignored and betrayed in favor of the DNC's neoliberal matriarch.

Back in 2016, a group of us, mostly young people, caucused for Bernie Sanders. We had a strong turnout, with more people in our group than for any other candidate. The next largest group was for Hillary Clinton.

The people running the caucus seemed to have their own agenda. They told those supporting other candidates that their choice was "nonviable" and that they needed to switch to a "viable" candidate. Then, they physically ushered them to stand with the Hillary group while they [the staffers] "figured things out". Many of the attendees were first-time caucus-goers, so they didn't know any better and assumed the staffers were just being helpful by directing them.

For those of us who had caucused before, it was clear what was happening: the staffers were trying to inflate Hillary’s numbers. When we tried to speak up, we were told not to interfere or risk being removed.

It was obvious to us that the DNC was working against Bernie, ensuring the nomination went to their chosen candidate. Even Trump acknowledged that Bernie would have been a tougher opponent to run against.

[–] ContriteErudite 3 points 3 months ago

Always delighted to spot another Boy Hits Car fan in the wild.

view more: next ›