• 0 Posts
  • 44 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 22nd, 2023

help-circle



  • It’s about a 13% cut in funding. Between the aprox. 207 libraries it cuts almost 300k from each leaving about 1.9 million per branch. These numbers are inflated in straight division like that because some of the libraries are not normal libraries, but research libraries which would have higher budgets so maybe around 1 - 1.2 million per regular branch. If you think that sounds like a lot because 1.2 million sounds like a big number, you’ve obviously never run a business.




  • fly

    to move through the air using wings.
    to be carried through the air by the wind or any other force or agency:
    

    “Any other force or agency” such as a car’s momentum

    jump

    to spring clear of the ground or other support by a sudden muscular effort; leap:
    

    “muscular effort” cars don’t make muscular effort.

    Looks like flew was technically more accurate



  • Hmm, I’m not sure how to correctly word my question.

    It was really just aimed at the implication in the comment I replied to that if this were true, we should have seen evidence for it in telescopes already. So my question was, what phenomena would we expect to see because of these topological defects that we don’t already see and have attributed to dark matter.

    As far as I’m aware (which really isn’t that far tbh) gravitational lensing is explained without needing any new hypotheses. But if dark matter was implicated in it to heighten the effect, that would still be something we have seen in our telescopes which could be explained by this so it still would answer the comment to which I replied as being something we have observed.

    Edit: OK I looked it up and yeah dark matter (or another explanation) is required to account for the amount of lensing we see. But still, that’s a thing we have observed so I guess my question would be, does this new idea not account for the same effect? If it does, that should answer the comment I was replying to.





  • I’m not sure if that was supposed to be in agreement or countering what I said.

    Over the past few decades, some people have noticed and commented on the enormous death toll that our reliance on driving and the vast amount of driving hours spent on our roads and said that that amount of death is unacceptable. Nothing has ever been able to come of it because of that aforementioned reliance on driving that our society has. Human nature cannot be the thing that changes, we can’t expect humans to behave differently all of a sudden nor change their ability to focus and drive safely.

    But this moment in time, when the shift from human to machine drivers is happening, the time when we shift from beings incapable of performing better on a global scale, to machines able to avoid the current death tolls due to their ability to be vastly more precise than humans, this is the time to reduce that death toll.

    If we allow companies to get away with removing sensors from their cars which results in lower safety just so that said company can increase their bottom line, I consider that unacceptable even if the death toll is slightly lower than human driven cars if it could be greatly lower than human driven cars.






  • I’m in the same boat with a lot of commenters here, of trying to reduce my consumption for ethical reasons. Throughout my life I’ve tried being vegan and I’ve tried being vegetarian and always failed and now am just minimizing and it’s working very well for me.

    Nonetheless, that picture gave me a chuckle. Life’s a ride, might as well have as good a time as possible and that usually coincides with being uptight as little as possible.