As I understand it, yes it was a saturated solution.

You’re totally correct that Celsius is the more sensible scale with easier to replicate reference points (when using water). It was also invented almost 30 years after the Fahrenheit scale and with all the insights gained from that period of technological advancement. In fact in the modern day the Celsius degree size is defined in reference to the Boltzmann constant since Celsius is essentially the Kelvin scale with the numbers moved around.

It also used 100 as the freezing point of water and 0 as the boiling point when originally proposed, which changed after Anders Celsius died because everyone knew that was a weird way to do it.

It makes no sense because that’s not what the 0 of the Fahrenheit scale is. The 0 point is the coldest an ammonium chloride brine mixture can be cooled to. The 90 point was an estimated average for human body temperature (it was adjusted up over time). These were chosen because the goal of the scale was to provide a way for people to have a defined temperature scale with a range and degree size that could be reliably reproduced without passing around standardized tools. 100 is really hot because human bodies were used as a reference for the high end, but the low end has nothing to do with the human body.

It’s a two pack, so $5 per cap. Slightly less ridiculous for a niche tool.

There is a world of difference between taking issue with someone making a poorly received argument and a government deciding that making that argument is inherently illegal.

You just have a bad trackball. My Kensington Expert glides smooth.

I can’t cite a source but I read once that the lawyers got involved and said Microsoft/Windows/some other term they have legal control of had to be the first word.

No concerns about the company management being corrupt and working against your interests, though?

Yeah the main lesson I’ve taken away from the last decade of cryptocurrency instability, NFTs, and things like algorithmically generated judicial sentencing guidelines that perpetuated the existing racial biases while making them seem more legitimate because “the computer can’t be wrong” is that we should run our whole society with them.

Misunderstanding on my end then, I made some clearly unfair assumptions. I agree with you there and apologize for the mischaracterization.

You might want to turn that incredibly critical eye you’ve got for communism back in on capitalism, that’s all.

Out of curiosity, how do you think governments in large capitalist economies (such as the US) properly account for greed for power and keep it in check? Do you think they are doing a good job on that front?