fartographer

Maximum Hoff

Outdated reference: Makin' sloppies!

Timeless reference: Fuck Rob Schneider

Yes. I was trying to make the point that everyone should treat these invasive technologies the same way they would treat someone trying to mix feces into their sugar. No one who is even mildly serious about protecting themselves or cooking should welcome any compromise on either. They're not safe, and they're not sane choices.

There's gotta be a compromise for how deep I can stick my unwashed poop-covered fingers in your bag of sugar. Do I not use the bidet and wipe too hard? Do I like exploring each turd in the toilet, or guessing how many pieces of corn are in each one while they're coming out? That's none of your business! Your only job is to decide how to tolerate my poopie fingers churning in your sugar.

Maybe we can get our hands on some of those Volvo lidar modules to combat all these cameras around us? "Your assumed right to record me doesn't overrule my right to make high resolution 3D scans of everywhere I go."

How does that even change the situation to make things safer? Are they gonna crash the drone into a suspect to diffuse a situation? Unless Flock is advertising domestic drone strikes, then the only feasible deliverables are more spying and more profiling.

As a panel of expert witnesses, bring in more 8-year-olds to demonstrate how to play Roblox. Add a mandatory checkbox that includes an attestation stating that the company is criminally liable and a requirement that these children must kick the entire C-suite to death.

Let's see how binding check boxes still are, and to what degree minors are expected to process and follow their commitments.

Damn, I commented the exact same thing 5 hours after you

You know what? This is completely on me. I put words in your mouth by saying that C is just as reasonable as m, l, and g, but at no point did you voice support one way or the other. For all I know, your arguments across the spectrum may be based on absolute values. Perhaps you prefer measurements for time and distance based on the hyperfine transition of hydrogen, and weight based on atomic mass.

I was pushing the rationale that arguing for metric units, which are based on freshwater at sea level, but against C, which is also based on (the perceived states of) freshwater at sea level, is an inconsistent argument. But, once again, you didn't push that narrative; I made assumptions and attributed that narrative to you.

I can't be certain that this is the exact reason, but I believe it's because metric units are based on measurements of fresh water at sea level. 1 kg = 1 litre = 1 m³ of fresh water at sea level. If fresh water at sea level has been used to standardize everything else, then why wouldn't you use it as the standard to calibrate a scale of 0 (least water movement) to 100 (most water movement)?

The problem with using K back when ⁰C were being standardized is that it's really really difficult to get your hands on some absolute zero. Also, since we generally use ⁰C to measure things here on Earth, I'd argue that the basis for C is just as arbitrary as the basis for metric. I think the equivalent of arguing for K over C would be to argue for light years or astronomical units over kilometres.

I want people to find my face at the starting runway, and my skull in some field 7 miles away from where the plane landed.