You might think so, but the best option is actually to put traffic lights out in the fields (which might actually be close enough to plausible to convince somebody with bad maps).

That page is troublingly silent on how the phases are actually connected. I would assume each smaller outlet gets one of the phase legs plus neutral and ground, but why can’t it just say that?

Eh, I think master is used (AFAIK) unproblematicly in other contexts like a master key, recording master, and master pattern. Converting it to “main” seems like a change or loss of meaning, but the problem may be that there is not really a consistent meaning across electronics usage to start with. I think “secondary” has some connotation of filling the same purpose or type as the primary, which doesn’t really fit for m/s usage. Master/sheep is my most similar option that keeps the “m/s”, but it feels awkward enough to draw attention to what it replaces. Could just do master (or main) and sub, where “sub” could mean substitute, subordinate, subscriber, [submissive,] etc. as needed.

Let him apply for his own unemployment. Pull himself up by his bootstraps (of other people’s money). Maybe he should even pull the old “as a black man …” while he’s at it and see how it goes there.

I think “plotting” doesn’t see a ton of use in that more neutral sense outside of a few idiomatic cases like “plotting a course”. I definitely did not naturally associate a presidential run with that navigational sense of “plotting”, but instead the “plotting an evil scheme” connotation jumped out. I’d think of planning a presidential run to be more similar in activity to plotting a scheme, another literal plan of actions to achieve a goal, than to plotting a course as a figurative map of those actions. That’s why I interpreted pretty sharply that way, at least.

Regardless of whether unconsciousness is actually the peak, if the claim is that D’s are at fault for not sacrificing more of other aspects of their lives to achieve a better outcome in their jobs, better outcomes for their constituents, needs some other line to be drawn to avoid applying it all the way to the extremes. It may technically be a tool at their disposal, but that doesn’t automatically make it a reasonable expectation; devoting every moment of their lives to their job is also technically at their disposal, but that can’t be reasonably expected of anyone, regardless of how important the job is. I posit that whatever line one draws there is what the real issue is, not their failure to do better.

I don’t disagree that they didn’t actually accomplish anything here, and it’s fair to say that deserves no accolades, but there is still a gap between actually helping and being at fault. They are less to blame than, and any rebuke should come after, any of the millions who voted for the R’s pushing this plan, even accounting for being elected reps vs voters.

Was “live in exile from your home and state” in the job description or something they campaigned on? It’s pretty clear that the D reps could have done more and that Texans need better outcomes from the legislature, but to blame the Dems for not doing more per se is overly reductive. Otherwise, anything less than continuously working to unconsciousness until nothing more is physically possible would still put them at fault, and that’s hardly a fair expectation to be placed on any job, even an elected representative.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Are you suggesting that lab-grown meat wouldn’t be controlled by existing laws on what can be in food and will contain some chemical with unknown effects on the human body (outside of those in natural meat)? And that we know all about the effects of whatever contaminants or bio-accumulants may end up in natural meat? I don’t believe either of those. If we went further and listed everything that went into the animal and the culture that grew the meat, for which we would know more about the effect on the human body?

To reiterate, I bet the lab folks could tell you the effect of their product on your body much better than ranchers and meat processing factories (or anyone else) ever could of theirs.

I bet the lab folks could tell you what’s in their product much better than ranchers and meat processing factories ever could. A lot of science goes into it though and some people seem to be allergic to that, at least based on the sorts of claims they make.

Isn’t the problem then the abusive power structure, whether it’s built on family/generation/age dynamics or something else, and that saying the problem is “incest” is de-emphasizing the more critical component (that’s already avoided too often)? Not to say that incest is a good thing or even harmless, but to be strategic in framing discussions that may affect how people look at things. Missed the thread header and this might not be the most relevant place to reply, but wanted to get the thought out.

I think that mental model only works if you imagine the parabolas as reaching to infinity in a finite space so that both ends are parallel, ie having identical vertical slopes of +/- infinity. At that point, easier just to call it “half an ellipse”. To me, it’s much easier to imagine a parabola as the end of an infinitely long ellipse.

Your intuition and the KSP example are correct though. If you imagine the plane and cone for a parabola, you wouldn’t notice any significant change to the shape (at a finite distance) if you tipped the plane ever so slightly into forming an ellipse (or a hyperbola, for that matter) since it’s all smooth changes.

Anyway, the size of the elliptical (I think hyperbolic would have a different sort of energy state) arc that’d be formed by a thrown object would be so large relative to human scale as to basically be infinite, equivalent to a parabola. I imagine the difference might become significant once you are launching something a decent way around the Earth, but with that much energy in play I don’t think it makes much difference where exactly the projectile “lands”.

Na: He’s clearly referring to Niobium. I’m not sure what that has to do with the relationship between a Heads Up Display and this “Department of Housing and Urban Development” thing.

Re post text: For context, Washington state is mail-only voting, so that number would (I assume) be for all votes, not just specifically requested mail-ins. I didn’t see it in the article, but I wonder if that is predominantly “centralized” or “distributed” in nature; i.e. are technically-valid ballots from all voters being incorrectly rejected by the county elections facilities office at different rates across racial lines, or are there other factors like targeted disinformation, education, local infrastructure, or socioeconomics that disproportionately affect Black (or other types of minority) voters that would make them more likely to produce a technically-invalid ballot?

Those might get the same statistic, but would seem to indicate very different sorts of problems and approaches.