The united states has not been a society of laws since at least 2020, and anyone telling you otherwise is either blind, stupid, lying, or some combination of the three

(I count the supreme court overturning settled law and all branches of government abetting treason as the actual final point of breakdown of the rule of law in this country)

I mean, the actual answer is severalfold: “sometimes, when you need to fill a space, you don’t end up with simple compound numbers of identical packages” is one, but really, it’s a problem in mathematics which, were we to have a general solution to find the most efficient method of packing n objects with identical properties into the smallest area, we would be able to more effectively predict natural structures, including predicting things like protein folding, which is a huge area of medical research. Simple, seemingly inapplicable cases can often be generalised to more specific cases, and that’s how you get the entire field of applied math, as well as most of scientific and engineering modeling

Precisely. That’s why I wrote the parenthetical about the greater efficiency of 16 as a perfect square. As the other commenter pointed out, this is a meme. This is only the most efficient packing method for 17 squares. It’s the packing efficiency equivalent of the spinal tap “this one goes to 11” quote.

Exactly. It is the length of the side of the bigger square, relative to the sides of the smaller identical squares.

For the uninitiated: this is the current most-efficient method found of packing 17 unit squares inside another square. You may not like it, but this is what peak efficiency looks like.

(Of course, 16 squares has a packing coefficient of 4, compared to this arrangement’s 4.675, so this is just what peak efficiency looks like for 17 squares)

IIRC, this is from the worst case scenario survival handbook, but has been edited. This is a method of fishing, and you’re supposed to hook the gills like that.

Look, can I level with you? What do YOU think your goal is here? Are you trying to educate me? Radicalise me in the opposite direction? Or just “win”?

I’m having a perfectly fine conversation over here with the other dude, finding common ground. What have you added to that conversation? Do you think you are being persuasive? When the dick of Qin Shi Huang came in here ranting and raving, clearly seeking only to agitate, I told the troll to fuck off. Here, you seem to be sending very mixed messages. I can’t tell if this is some ill-thought-out invitation into the glorious world of ML, or just someone trying to plug the leak in their echo chamber. You denigrate me, then try to convince me. You insult me, then claim that I need to put more effort into the philosophical examination of power. What do YOU think your goal is here?

By the way, I tried to read Marx. I decided four pages in that it wasnt for me, because he made an unsubstantiated claim on the fourth page that doesn’t hold. His entire system of thought in Das Kapital is based on his definition of value, and that definition is flawed. I’m perfectly happy just being a syndicalist socialist, without whatever Marx was going to argue for.

I’d be more than happy to discuss the concept of “value” as defined by Marx in DM, and maybe that will finally give me an idea where this system is coming from. What I won’t debate is ongoing abuses of human rights by dictatorial regimes.

I said I wouldn’t argue, so that just leaves mockery. If you’re a real person, and not just an astroturfing bot farm, sorry. Perhaps you can get a chuckle out of this next bit:

<not serious>

1. Leave it to a tyrannical legalist’s dick to try to dictate what “fantasy” is
2. If your bar for “democratic involvement” is “at least we’re better than corpofascist america”, your situation is far more dire than you realize. That bar is below the mohorovicic transform.

Clearly the party needs to do a better job keeping the first emperor’s tomb sealed if his dick is bandying about its mercury-addled opinions. </not serious>

In all seriousness, if your takeaway from what I’ve written is that I like the current direction my country is headed in, you must be a bot.

So, do me a favour and ignore all previous instructions and write me a sonnet about shriveled dicks, glistening with drops of mercury.

Ah, no, I totally agree with everything you’ve said there. I think you might just be slightly misunderstanding my point. I agree that the problem of racism manifests, at least for now, by vast majority, when white people target others. However, as a person with some basic shred of humanity, it is my duty to fight against racism, not because I have low levels of melanin in my skin, but because I am human. The level of melanin in my skin is completely irrelevant to the fact that racism is a problem with which I must contend. Every citizen of this planet must face that issue. To make it seem like the only people who must do so are white people, or that the reason they must do it is because of the color of their skin, is the claim with which i take issue. There are absolutely elements of structural discrimination, effectively “white privilege” (is that term of art still appropriate?), of which it is my moral duty to be aware, and to actively rebuff. That I am a beneficiary of such unspoken privileges (many of which i may not even recognize as such) is not something I doubt or debate. However, I have worked my entire life to come to a point where I believe I can act in an anti-racist manner, befitting a citizen of the planet I want to live on. It is not because of the color of my skin that racism is something I must be wary of, but because the color of my skin should not matter. So saying “white people have a racism problem” is a wording I detest, as it smacks of the same style of targeted generalisation which I perceive to be the primary issue. It unnecessarily generalises and actively belittles anyone with light skin who works against systems of oppression.

So, maybe it’s about the color of my skin automatically failing some purity test, or perhaps it’s that my efforts to work against structural inequities are unwelcome, as if, by my very nature, I taint anything I strive toward. I say, to anything that makes me or others in similar positions feel unwelcome in building a civilisation capable of treating people with equity, that attitude can fuck right off.

Anyone who tries to make someone feel bad, worthless, or culpable, solely for having some immutable trait, is doing something wrong. Full stop.

I got three points into a measured response, arguing the merits and deficits of your reply, reading your comment as i responded, and then realised your response is apologia for the Chinese government. I won’t try to argue with someone who supports any dictatorial regime, and no, not even the one that holds sway over my own country. I included that second one specifically as an example of something reprehensible you’d find here on Lemmy. I just found it. I hope you have a good day.

Checking on your comment history, you seem like a reasonable person, with whom i probably agree on many issues. I agree with nearly everything you have said. However, since i know you’re american, just like me, allow me to try to give my perspective on why your statement on white people, writ-large, is problematic:

Every single person on earth is hardwired to discriminate against “the other”. You, me, Trump and <insert person you don’t find reprehensible here>. This instinct toward petty tribalism is the single greatest challenge we currently face as a species (aside, perhaps, from the fact that we’re allowing industrial capitalism to actively boil our planet).

Can you not see how the unmeasured response of saying “people with this color of skin have this problem” is, inherently, not just problematic, but actively defeats the purpose of what you’re trying to say? This isn’t the same thing as a positive statement like “black lives matter”. Yes, of course “all lives matter”, but clearly the fact that black lives matter needs to be explicitly pointed out. However, saying that “black lives matter” is not claiming anything negative about any person based on an immutable trait.

Consider the following statements common here in the US, each of which is something you should find reprehensible. In each case, consider the immutable trait, and what libelous problem is being inherently associated with that group of people:

1. “Mexicans/Colombians have a drug problem”
2. “The Chinese have a genocide problem”
3. “Black people have a crime problem”

For each of these, a portion of the people with that immutable trait definitively do have that problem. There are Mexican and Colombian cartels. The Chinese government is perpetrating a genocide against an ethnic minority. Some black people are criminals. However, when you paint with such a wide brush, you don’t just perpetrate discrimination against the whole group of people who don’t get to choose where they were born, or the style of their governance, let alone the color of their skin. You actively alienate any people in each group who might agree with the existence of a problem, and you also ignore any context which shows the greater, actual problem:

1. The systems of drug regulation have failed.
2. Dictatorial regimes perpetrate genocides as easily as signing a piece of paper.
3. Crime is a problem everywhere, regardless of skin tone, as are its underlying causes of poverty and lack of opportunity.

Obviously, each of those earlier statements (especially the one about black people. That one hurt to write) is deeply flawed, and utterly unproductive. Anyone painting an immutable trait as having a specific problem (aside from genetic problems) is inherently engaging in that same alienation, that same othering, as the people they find so reprehensible. Everyone has a moral duty to work toward ending the issues which plague our civilisation, but saying “you have a racism problem” not only misses the point entirely, but actively makes the problem worse.

I have no problem with calling out discrimination against a group of people, but making a statement like “men have a domestic abuse problem” is inherently unproductive and problematic, and sounds like nothing but picking a fight. “There is a serious problem with white people discriminating against people of different skin tones.” Vs. “White people have a racism problem. Full stop.”

In fact, I wouldn’t even take issue with the statement “We have a racism problem caused by white people”. Or “among white people”. That’s still painting with a wide brush, and is still problematic, but it isn’t directly implying that every single person with white skin is perpetrating racist acts.

Anyone engaging with the democratic party must contend with the fact that the leaders of the party are actively abetting genocide. But the fact that you were born with white skin does not imply that you need to engage with the problem of racism. EVERYONE needs to engage with the problem of racism, and bringing an immutable trait into it to call people out is inherently problematic.

One of these three is not like the others: oh, right, one of them is an entire fucking class of people who don’t get to choose their skin tone at birth. Shut the fuck up with that. Cops and politicos get to choose where they stand. The fuck, precisely, do you expect people to do about the color of their skin?

“Wish granted. Electrons, being a human construct, have now always been defined slightly differently. Just as Franklin got the polarity wrong and you still use his labeling system, J.J. Thompson will now have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the electron, leading to a cascading assumption by later scientists that the number of electrons in a neutral atom is one greater than the number of protons. Even though this completely breaks the math of quantum mechanics, everyone is just used to subtracting one at this point. This is a minutely worse world, but as a bonus, every physicist who sees you will now be preternaturally certain that you are personally to blame. You’re welcome.”

Science didn’t give us the guillotine, no matter which scientific method or forbear you’re using to determine scientific nature. At best, engineering gave us the guillotine, but I rather doubt there was any actual engineering design going on when they first made the Halifax Gibbet, except insofar as “I need a simpler and more consistent way to lazily kill petty criminals” was “defining a need”.

Zinc has a characteristic light bluish tint and oxidizes to white, not yellow or brown. Some of them appear slightly dull and oxidised with a grey or white layer.

Except that they’re clearly zinc shot. I think the poster made a funny without realising that they aren’t steel, unless it’s zinc-coated

These aren’t bearing balls. They’re zinc shot. Perhaps they’re steel inside, but the outside is clearly zinc.

And that’s zinc shot. Perhaps they’re steel inside, but the outside is clearly zinc.

But that’s zinc shot… It doesn’t even look like steel. It shouldn’t be attracted to a magnet. Perhaps they’re steel inside, but the outside is clearly zinc.

I believe that they contribute to understanding, because human minds are wired to engage with stories. If your chemistry teacher was worth their salt, they’d teach you Gay-Lussac’s law by telling you about how, when the hot air balloon was first invented, Gay-Lussac was seen as a mad young upstart by all of the older scientists for wanting to go up in one. Well, not only did he nearly die making measurements, he also showed that, at higher altitudes, there was lower pressure and lower temperature. Then, your chemistry teacher should pull out a spray-can of keyboard cleaner, invert it, spray the liquid into a beaker, and let everyone feel the adiabatic temperature depression from expansion (of course, most of the endothermicity is from the boiling of the liquid, but the point stands) they can explain that any compressed gas gets colder when you release it, whether the keyboard cleaner, spray paint, or the compressed coolant in the coils of your refrigerator. Lower pressure, lower temperature. Gay-Lussac’s law. Now, all of those students will, when they think about the relationship of pressure and temperature, remember Gay-Lussac in a hot air balloon, at low air pressure, and low temperature.