I have some better quality kitchen knives I like keeping sharp.

I use a two-sided whetstone 400/2000 grit for basic shaping (400 is akin to those rolling sharpeners, to be used only when you fucked up real bad), a leather strop with green sharpening paste (~6000-8000 grit) glued to a piece of wood, a plain leather strop, and a honing steel.

Green sharpening paste is most of what I ever use, a couple of strokes weekly (more realistically about 20 once a month), and maybe polish it up with the plain leather strop. Keeps the knives wicked sharp, and then I just hone them after each use.

Sometimes I do stupid things and get burrs in my edge (like cleaving frozen bone), that’s where the 2000 grit saves me.

400 I guess is for when the apocalypse comes or your kids decided to practice chef’s knife throwing into scrap metal. It’s nice to know I can remake a whole edge, but rarely used.

Yeah, suck it mars, world record planet right here.

Lol, indoctrinated much?

We will still expend energy, thus satisfying the gods of thermodynamics.

My list is quite different than the ones currently in the thread.

The boring ones:

Creating a vaccine or other cloaking to make humans invisible to ticks & mosquitoes. A separate project would be to do the same for parasites.

Enacting strict pollution/carbon limits and mandatory circular economy everywhere in the world.

Researching, trialing and Enacting a sustainable post-capitalist system everywhere in the world.

Developing solar energy until covering global energy demands, including a power network that can transport energy from the sunny side and/or orbit everywhere.

The slightly more ambitious:

Establish self-sustainable colonies living on off-earth resources, most probably also situated off-earth.

Create a Dyson swarm with enough energy output for in-system exploration, mining, colonisation, and terraforming.

Perfect matter replicators.

I have some other ideas as well, but those would be a start.

I’ve gotten sets with nigiri and maki in several cities around Japan. I guess my experience and yours differ.

In my European country you’ll order sushi as nigiri at any cornershop sushi place.

It’s most often sold as a set, where there’s typically 4 pieces of some roll with three ingredients and nori on the outside (but variations are not uncommon).

It’s quite close to what I’ve had in Japan. Although fish quality is very different.

If you’re buying tickets that far in advance, PTO is less of a request and more of “notifying you to fill those days”.

Mostly spam, porn, and recipes it seems from the traffic.

🤣

Me calling you Shirley, no matter how much you insist you’re Tom, doesn’t make Shirley a slur, it just makes me a rude asshole.

It’s always worthwhile to learn new things!

And programming is a tool, so it’s typically made to be clear how to use it, although of course people will differ on what needs to be clarified the most.

My experience is that there’s way too much discussion in what tool to pick, it doesn’t matter that much and almost all of the common languages will allow you to do all the things. And even though some will be better adapted for certain applications, it’s easy to pick up the new tool when relevant, and you’ll be that much ahead by being well versed in one.

As for how to learn, I find that you kind of need to figure out the basic syntax in each language (loops, conditionals, output, memory management, typology, lists, function calling, maybe classes/libraries if you’re fancy), and then start doing projects.

A nice intro for C# is the C# Player’s Guide by R B Whitaker, using some gamification and storytelling to get you through the basics, and even leave you prepared to tackle your first projects (by practicing design philosophy, how to break down projects, etc).

Otherwise, Python is a lot of fun, it’s made to be very easy to jump into, and then it’s fully featured to do anything you’d like it to. Unfortunately all my resources for it are in my local language, but it has many many users so I’m sure there’s great resources to be found in your own language.

IIRC, a tree absorbs up to 3 tons/year, and takes a bunch of years to get to that stage.

The trees also don’t sequester underground, and will need surface area staying as forest for the rest of time.

As many have echoed: an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure. Most bang for our buck would be to change our lifestyle and regulations. But as that’s not feasible we’re at the geo engineering and artificial sequestration stage.

Thanks for linking!

But lol, that is such an obviously biased report with vague eyebrow waving suggestions that immigrants are to blame for everything.

None of the charts or trends they present are consistent in their effect, haven’t controlled for anything (the major point is lowered GDP per capita while immigration spiked five years ago, but the Brexit drop started well before then, and the exodus of specialist EU-migrants isn’t even mentioned), and don’t actually say anything except look at this red line next to a thing getting worse.

CPS is why you should view every “Think tank” as a lobbyist organisation, and their materials as sales flyers…

Wow, this is a useless editorial.

No link to the report, unclear if the report takes into account years since migration (it takes time to learn language, develop networks, and climb ladders), some indication that the trouble is that migrants end up in low paying jobs (which of course would decrease GDP), and no comment on the fairly obvious question on what the integration policy says about time frames.

Also, it puts all of the post-Brexit decline at the door of the immigrants, which seems ridiculous.

This reads like a hit piece from conservatives in preparation for election season.

When does this raise questions of precedent? Is everyone entitled to 10 violations of a gag order in NYC now?

@toboggonablaze is essentially correct, but let me try explain it in a slightly different way.

Lasers do a bunch of things to basically shoot a stream of photons at something. There’s basically two ways you can affect how much energy comes out of a laser, you can make the stream denser (more photons per second) - called intensity, or you can increase the energy in each photon.

The weird part about photon energy is that higher energy photons are of a different “color”, where red is lower than green, is lower than blue, is lower than gamma rays, etc.

So changing the color of a laser already means you’ve changed how much energy it can output.

Then there’s another part of your question: how lead gets heated up. Different materials respond differently to different types/wavelengths of light, an example you might be familiar with is that glass panes let through visible light, but not the heat from the sun, or that water also is see through, but can easily be microwaved (by microwaves - low frequency light).

Basically, a material can be more or less “translucent” in certain frequencies. I’d like to look lead up for you, but Google isn’t cooperating today. But basically, there are frequencies that lead will be more and less susceptible to.

That’s probably not what you meant with the question, but if that’s the application you want to use the laser for, you might want to take it into consideration.

So, in summary: color is energy, intensity is energy, you can change both independently, so your question doesn’t quite make sense.

Also, different targets will heat differently, also not making it a fair comparison.

We’re trying to describe the scarcity of something in units of something becoming less scarce every year. ftfy

Your last response wasn’t constructive, and this one does even less to further a discussion. I’ll just end this here.

Have a nice rest of your existence.

There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.

I’d agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I’ve provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.

That’s dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who’s to say that your consciousness wasn’t limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can’t disprove what happens before or after life

As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it’s well established that it’s contingent on the body.

And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?

You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we’d just add the other paradigms to the areas they’re useful, like we’ve done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.

A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they’re unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?