Skip Navigation

Posts
4
Comments
4,551
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The issue isn't the voltage. It is the wattage. UK kettles draw 3kW. US outlets are (typically) only rated for 2.4kW. We can easily get dedicated 30A, 120v outlets that will provide 3.6kW.

    US 240v is not the same as UK 240v.

    The UK uses a single live phase, (240v with respect to ground), and a neutral (0v with respect to ground).

    The US uses two live phases. Each phase is 120v with respect to ground, but they are 180 degrees apart from eachother. Phase to phase is 240V, but either phase to ground is 120v.

    A UK kettle expects its neutral phase to be at the same potential as ground, which can't happen in the US without a 1-to-1 transformer

  • You are refuting an argument that I did not make.

    I am refuting the argument that would need to be made in order to support your position. I clearly specified that necessity in my refutation. "Cancer" and "billionaire" would have to be synonymous, not analogous, for "literally" to have been used correctly.

    What type of cancer are billionaires? Carcinomas are cancers of epithelial tissue, but "society" does not have epithelial tissue. Sarcomas are cancers of musculoskeletal and connective tissues, but "society" does not have bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. Myelomas are cancers of the plasma cells in bone marrow, but again, "society" doesn't have bones. Leukemias are cancers of the various blood cells, but society doesn't have "blood". Lymphomas are cancers of the lymphatic system, but society doesn't have one of those either.

    In fact, "society" does not have biological tissues or organs that could even become literally cancerous. (Members of society do, indeed, have these various organs and tissues, but no member of society has been diagnosed with a "Bezosma" or "Muskaemia".)

    "Billionaires are cancer" is a metaphor. "Billionaires are literally cancer" is simply a false statement, unless "literally" was used, incorrectly, as hyperbole.

  • With a resistive, electric burner, your point is valid, but we are talking about an inductive range. They don't work by conducting heat from the range to the pan. They work by inducing an electric current in the pan itself. The heat is produced within the metal of the pan, not within the range. The pan does, indeed, need to be thermally insulated from the range to minimize heat loss.

  • My point is that I believe OP was using the word "literally" to mean what it literally means,

    You can only rationally make that argument if you are claiming that "society" is a biological organism, like an amoeba or a babboon, presumably evolved from other common ancestors of all life on earth. When you can tell me the scientific name of this organism, and what organs have been affected by tumors, we can start talking about the literality of the "cancer" OP referred to.

    As the underlying logic was metaphorical, "literally" was used as figurative hyperbole, not literality.

  • I'm lost.

    I'm angry.

    And I'm armed.

  • They said anti-hero.

  • I don't think you're understanding me. I'll see if I can rephrase.

    There is no "jail them for life" option without the law. If you try to imprison them without the law, the law will just come in and free them. You're suggesting a middle option that is simply not feasible.

    I'm asking you to choose between:

    • "Guillotine Party", a political party, much like the Tea Party, dedicated to stripping the problem-class of their excessive political power, perhaps by creating laws to justify their permanent imprisonment. We politically, figuratively decapitate them. This approach can (theoretically) jail them for life, by creating the law that would allow it to happen.
    • "guillotine party", where we solve the problem-class in much the same way that 18th century France solved their aristocracy problem. We literally decapitate them. This approach will not jail them for life; this approach will execute them for anti-revolutionary activities.

    While the specific details will vary wildly, these are the only two general options we have available to us to effect reform: politics, or force.

  • No, actually, it doesn't make you liable for manslaughter. It probably doesn't even rise to the level of civil liability for wrongful death. They are compliant with the law, and they make sure of that by having their lawyers write the laws. The "anyone involved in the deaths" includes the deceased themselves, who is determined to bear primary responsibility.

    We can override the laws they are writing (Guillotine Party) or we can suspend the laws to hold them accountable (guillotine party). But jailing them without a conviction just isn't feasible.

  • You hold the pencil and twirl the cassette around on it.

  • I think OP used literally correctly here.

    Then you do not understand what the word "literally" literally means.

    While several treatments would work for either, (such as carving up the offending subject with a knife, or sufficient application of chemical or radiative agents), billionaires are an economic problem, not a biologic one.

  • There is no law providing for such a sentence, so what you are talking about is either "make billionaireism illegal" or "extrajudicial punishment". In the case of the former, we need a Guillotine Party to take over the DNC much like the Tea Party took over the GOP. Or, we need a guillotine party, French Revolution style, to resolve the problem-class at its source.

  • Freshwater fish can still have mercury. Even farmed fish can have mercury contamination, if their feed is sourced from the wild.

    If you won't eat fish though that sounds more like a you problem.

    Nah, I'm perfectly happy with my hot dogs. You're the one eating broken thermometers and fluorescent lights.

  • The alternative interpretation is that the second driver was doing 50, and honked at the first driver when they passed doing 70.

  • Fish are carnivorous, and mercury is bioaccumulative. So, larger fish tend to have higher concentrations than smaller fish, but pretty much all fish have some level of mercury. There is no "safe" concentration.

    But the real problem with your scenario is that I'd prefer hunger pangs over fish, grilled or otherwise.

  • Parent comment discussed "anxiety", a condition which has its own associated morbidity and mortality, and should also be considered when evaluating these studies.

  • Welfare isn't assistance to the poor. Welfare in the US is those efforts specifically designed to denigrate and humiliate the poor.

    Means testing increases costs and decreases effectiveness and should not be included in these programs. But it always is.

    We need to start thinking of ourselves as "shareholders". We invest our individual political authority in out government, who uses that authority to provide essential services to business and individual customer, while charging for those services via taxation. Without the political authority of the citizenry, they would have no ability to provide those services.

    We are each individually owed a return on our investment, separate and apart from any of the services we receive from the government. UBI should be thought of as a citizenship dividend, owed to the "shareholders" of government. It is not "charity".

  • 1000 people show up to the annual picnic. If we remove hot dogs from the market, and dont serve them at our picnic, or any picnic, ever, 40 of those 1000 people are going to get colorectal cancer.

    If we do serve hot dogs at our picnic (and every other picnic), 43 people are going to get colorectal cancer at some point in their lives.

    Pass the mustard.