And in this particular case, the soft lining of the esophagus wouldn’t necessarily get the stinger stuck.

One of the my childhood friend’s dad swallowed a bee once. He nearly died, and frequently said it was the worst summer of his life.

Important to note this is the Royal Air Force. Unlike the US, the Royal Air Force covers both land and naval based aircraft.

It’s a surprisingly good idea for carrier aircraft. The landing gear on carrier planes has to be extra durable because carrier landings are rough. Getting rid of landing gear would save a lot of weight and a big source maintenance.

Worked pretty well. The only reason it wasn’t pursued was because carrier aircraft do land on regular runways, and nobody wants to convert every single runway to a bouncy version.

It’s not like they’re part of a company whose core product is search.

Dime a dozen. It’s not hard to get a used cop car at auction.

Actual impersonation. From a CNN article:

Around 3:35 a.m., another call came in when officers were proactively checking on Hortman’s home. When Brooklyn Park police officers arrived they noticed that there was a police vehicle in the driveway with emergency lights on and what appeared to be a police officer at the door, coming out of the house, officials said. That individual immediately fired a weapon at them, Evans said, and exchanged gunfire took place during which the suspect was able to escape.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/14/us/minneapolis-targeted-shooting

I don’t think a cop doing this would shoot back at other cops. They’d report back that the perp was long gone and they saw nothing.

Edit: lol, the guy is a rent-a-cop

There’s a sizable number of Christians who say the Trinity is part of the definition of Christianity. That’s dumb gatekeeping, but if they insist on it, then the first three Presidents were not Christian. Washington was a diest, which means he would reject any divinity status for Jesus. Adams and Jefferson both explicitly rejected the Trinity.

Guessing Tucker is more in bed with Russia than Trump. Russia is in bed with Iran. Now it’s the worst foursome scene on Pornhub.

He’s the guy who looked directly at the eclipse, so yeah, he’d probably do that, too.

Bets on Donnie forcing it to go ahead anyway?

Honestly, they’d be horrified at a bunch of things, some of which are on MAGA, and some on progressives. Maybe we shouldn’t be taking the ideas of slaveowners from over 200 years ago as seriously as we do.

“You guys cured smallpox, and there’s people who are working against the cure?” - Also Ben Franklin, who lost one of his sons to smallpox

There’s a whole other group out there who argues that doing anything to stop the bottom panel is communism, and communism is bad and terrible (according to people who have never read anything about it except Ayn Rand). You’ll have to fight with them over what constitutes “real capitalism”.

I’ll be over here noting the whole notion of profits going predominantly to the owner of capital is flawed to begin with.

Big Tech has done everything they can to convince people that they absolutely cannot be trusted with this.

A contingency in case of…what?

In 1992, LA had riots sparked by police brutality. Since then, the LAPD has striven to uphold the utmost standards in police work . . . lol, no, they made sure ACAB applies double to them.

I read a bit of the book. There’s some framing around it by the authors and popular press that I don’t think quite matches up with the data. In the end, it is true that movements that are predominantly nonviolent tend to win more often, but there is often a violent element that plays a role.

(Apologies for any mistakes in my transcription from the book.)

To quote it:

Our central contention is that nonviolent campaigns have a participation advantage over violent insurgencies, which is an important factor in determining campaign outcomes. The moral, physical, informational, and commitment barriers to participation are much lower for nonviolent resistance than for violent insurgency. Higher levels of participation contribute to a number of mechanisms necessary for success, including enhanced resilience, higher probabilities of tactical innovation, expanded civic disruption (thereby raising the costs to the regime of maintaining the status quo), and loyalty shifts involving the opponent’s erstwhile supporters, including members of security forces.

Which sounds like nonviolent campaigns win, right? Reading on shows it’s not quite that simple.

It is appropriate here to briefly define the terms to which we will consistently refer in this book. First, we should distinguish violent and nonviolent tactics. As noted earlier, there are some difficulties with labeling one campaign as violent and another as nonviolent. In many cases, both nonviolent and violent campaigns exist simultaneously among competing groups. Often those who employ violence in mass movements are members of fringe groups who are acting independently, or in defiance of, the central leadership; or they are agents provocateurs used by the adversary to provoke the unarmed resistance to adopt violence (Zunes 1994). Alternative, often some groups use both nonviolent and violent methods of resistance over the course of their existence, as with the ANC in South Africa. Characterizing a campaign as violent or non-violent simplifies a complex constellation of resistance methods.

It is nevertheless possible to characterize a campaign as principally nonviolent based on the primacy of nonviolent resistance methods and the nature of the participation in that form of resistance.

Later in the chapter:

As one might expect, there are several good reasons why social scientists have avoided comparing the dynamics and outcomes of nonviolent and violent campaigns, including their relative effectiveness. First, the separation of campaigns into violent and nonviolent for analytical purposes is problematic. Few campaigns, historically, have been purely violent or nonviolent, and many resistance movements, particularly protracted ones, have had violent and nonviolent periods.

Classifying any given movement as strictly nonviolent would not have worked. The data is too messy for that.

Even the definition of success is tricky:

Success and failure are also complex outcomes, about which much has been written (Baldwin 2000). For our study, to be considered a “success” a campaign had to meet two conditions: the full achievement of its stated goals (regime change, antioccupation, or succession) within a year of the peak of activities and a discernible effect on the outcome, such that the outcome was a direct result of the campaign’s activities (Pape 1997). The second qualification is important because in some cases the desired outcome occurred mainly because of other conditions. The Greek resistance against the Nazi occupation, for example, is not coded as a full success even though the Nazis ultimately withdrew from Greece. Although effective in many respects, the Greek resistance alone cannot be credited with the ultimate outcome of the end of Nazi influence over Greek resistance alone cannot be credited with the ultimate outcome of the end of Nazi influence over Greece since the Nazi withdrawal was the result of the Allied victory rather than solely Greek resistance.

In fact, they classify basically all resistance (nonviolent or violent) to the Nazi regime as a failure. There are a few exceptions, such as the Rosenstrasse Protest. However, the Nazis fell predominantly due to the actions of the armies of other nation states, not the local resistance groups (though they certainly played a role in helping, such as funneling intelligence to the Allies).

The conclusions are more nuanced than the headlines. Her data shows that violent and non-violent methods often work in tandem. It tends to be different factions of the same movement using different methods, and they tend not to like each other. The more violent faction says the peaceful faction is naive, while the peaceful faction finds violent methods unconscionable.

More people will tend to join the peaceful faction, perhaps because it’s easier to join the side that isn’t asking morally gray things of them. However, the violent side plays a more direct role in undermining the system of oppression.

Energy is becoming incredibly cheap

Not an excuse for wastefulness. The numbers here are so great that a good sized city would need a nuclear reactor brought online just for this.

systems like this and the more famous one in Holland MI are generally run on waste heat

That’s fine if it’s available. It’s usually heavy industry that’s providing that. If you don’t have a convenient heavy industry to provide that, then move on.

It’s very weird to see so much resistance to this in an anti-car community, as if pedestrian and micromobility infrastructure doesn’t need snow removal too.

What of it? There’s perfectly good plows for walking and biking paths, too.

A Manhattan city block, on the short end of the rectangle, is 264 feet. A typical road lane is 12 ft across. Assume two road lanes and 4 inches of snow, getting 2100 cu ft of snow.

Using this snow weight calculator, fresh snow of that size will be 6,589.4 - 9,229.4 lbs. Let’s take the midpoint of 8100 lbs. That’s 3 million grams. And from here on, I can do the rest in metric.

Assuming it’s at 0C already, it takes 334 Joules to melt 1 gram of snow. It will take 1.2GJ to melt the amount above.

There are electric snowplows being tested in Norway with 1000 kwh battery packs. That’s 3.6 MJ. Quoting the article: "In light to moderate snowfall and temperatures as low as minus five degrees, the truck covered a total distance of 293 kilometers (km) at an average speed of 47 kilometers per hour (km/h). "

Yes, snow plows are more efficient. It’s not even close. You can chop off orders of magnitude and it’s still not even close.

I really, really need people in this thread to understand thermodynamics. Melting ice takes a fuckton of energy.

Maybe these can be useful to hybridize the system, where you plow normally and then melt the little remaining to avoid the use of salt. As a total replacement, no. That’s a laughably bad idea.

The power use is exactly the same. You are melting the same quantity of snow, but over a longer period of time.

In fact, it might be worse to pre-warm, because a lot of power will be wasted into the air.