Is this the version of Islam the Taliban are going off of?

Fire in the hole!

(Credibly speaking, those weren’t battery explosions)

You think people who are undecided about voting for me check that?

- Poilievre

And honestly the immigration laws thing is a stretch, although you’re right to mention it as a common definition. There’s a certain effort to associate all irregular migration with modern slavery, just as a rhetorical tool (and it’s bullshit).

Moving vulnerable people to a new country is definitely a common element of sex trafficking, but it has nothing to do itself with whether a sex worker is being coerced or not.

You bet your ass they’re tearing everything apart in a panic now, at least. Which might be a reason to stop at two devices and save the new shekels.

That’s more of a philosophical stance than any kind of secret.

No. Any rigged hardware dragnet that catches me will catch tons of “friendly” people, and I’m not important enough to personally target.

Probably comparable to rage comics.

All 4 of them, as of posting, compared to the 25 upvotes.

That gives all gif/jif stuff right now.

I guess in real life that’s polarising…

On here it’s just preaching to the choir, thus the upvotes.

On the one hand, it’s a victimless crime, at least roughly. On the other, people have been shown incapable of making the obvious correct decision on their own.

Yep. Sadly, I’m not sure there’s another way for most people. On Lemmy we’re mostly nerds, but would most people have learned even basic math if they didn’t have to?

In some ways, the most motivated or talented students are just as ill-fitted to the production line system of education as the disabled ones.

And you actually think housing speculation doesn’t happen on a wide scale? Like… what? Again, have you heard people talk about economics before? You said you understood a good amount of it, but you’re denying that housing speculation is real?

Speculation happens, sure. I don’t buy that it drives things way out of equilibrium in the long run. As far as I can tell from a skim, neither do your sources.

And do you really think supply & demand isn’t taught as a law? We hear the phrase “the law of supply & demand” bandied about whenever anyone does any pop-economics. Do you seriously not encounter that?

I also hear about “Murphy’s law”, which is self-evidently not (literally) true in all cases. If you’re teaching an actual Econ 101-type course and you don’t mention market failure, you’re teaching it badly.

The 2008 recession was literally a housing speculation bubble.

Not exactly. A drop in housing prices triggered it IIRC, but the actual chain of dominoes played out on paper in financial instruments.

In an ideal market the big banks would have just been replaced with new ones who take less risks of that sort, but they were too big to fail. That’s definitely a problem, but I don’t really know enough to comment on what the fix should be intelligently; banking economics is on a whole other level.

Also, in Canada, your tradespeople are swamped but there are about 1.3 million empty houses.

The total shortfall is in the neighborhood of 3.5 million units.

There’s always some, just because people move unpredictably - a “frictional” amount. I’m sure someone somewhere is sitting on an empty house for no good reason, but they’re losing money, so I doubt it’s a lot by comparison to the frictional amount.

Homeless people aren’t let in for a really sad reason that has nothing to do with necessity: few voters care and nonprofits can’t raise enough money - or alternately donated space - without government help. A lot of those people have “high needs”, and are at risk of causing damage or just leaving a mess, so it’s not like it’s free to let them stay in a building until the next tenant shows up.

The lab politics doesn’t come from nowhere. Sciences advance in a way that is exploitable by capital. When someone discovers a new kind of technology usually it can be turned into a profit. Often the details are obscured by charlatans looking to make a quick buck - see any tech hype cycle for an example of this - but interfering with the scientific process is usually going to be detrimental to the aims of capitalists.

Capitalism is neither necessary nor sufficient for politics. Look at the USSR and all the various times they flip-flopped on whatever issue or person. Or Republican Spain and it’s many warring factions, if that’s more your idea of non-capitalism.

It’s true that some scientists are on the hook to say things convenient for a sponsor. The nice thing is that a valid observation will stand the test of time regardless of who makes it. Marx made a huge impact on social sciences, and you don’t have to agree with him on any particular thing (left or right wing - he was still a Victorian white man) to appreciate economics as a driver of history. The same goes for marginalism and friends.

Is there some individual news story this relates to?

A meme that comes quickly, goes quickly.

It’s not an actual organised group, if you didn’t know. Anyone can hack something and then say “Done by Anonymous”.

Yes, computers in their various forms are now so user friendly (and often locked down, because fuck you) that you don’t learn much using them. The golden age for learning tech on the fly seems to have been 1990-2010 or so, because computers were both accessible and still had exposed inner logic.

Yes, thank you, me too, hopefully with a loose deadline. It’s an absolute ton of work just for a thing that spins, but something has to do it first if you want to bootstrap back to machines recognisably modern.

I wonder what scale would be best. Smaller is obviously easier to physically manage, but the catch is that your manufacturing error stays the same while the measurements they’re relative to decrease.

Alright, so I followed the same tack for a while, but the tricky thing is that a hyperboloid of one sheet is doubly ruled, which means you have to worry about secant lines corresponding in some way spuriously, just due to relation with the ruling lines. That inspired me to go in a different direction.

To make a cone, you need the wiper/striker to be coplaner with the axis or rotation; otherwise, it will become a ruling line. This is both necessary and sufficient, given that we don’t particularly care about the exact cone. Furthermore, any two non-coincident intersecting lines make a plane, and gravity offers an easy way to produce parallel lines.

You make a half-mould with a cavity that will look something like a speech bubble. The inner edge of the tail(?) will become half of the wiper, and the rest will become half of the upper beam. By reusing the mold, you can ensure the mated halves will be fairly symmetrical bilaterally, which means the center of gravity will be close to coplaner with the meeting point where the wiper forms. Some combination of filler or adhesive in between and a draw string around the outside seems like the best way to hold them together. True, that may introduce asymmetry, but with such limited tools compromises have to be made. The string or rope itself is relatively light, and with attention to detail it will still end up reasonably close to balanced.

Now you have a rigid piece with a center of gravity (roughly) coplanar to the wiper. You can use the parting line to center awl points, which will also be (roughly) coplanar. Tho only configuration of the two rotating awl points involved and the rigid body’s center of gravity which can balance is the three of them all lined up along the zenith. So, if you can balance these two components, you’ve guaranteed that the axis of rotation is the zenith, the line from center of gravity to upper awl point is the zenith. Then, the zenith is in the plane of the wiper, and so the axis or rotation is coplanar to the wiper. QED, to whatever degree that applies to caveman work.

The actual process would be very involved. The task is picky, the pieces are heavy and the top beam is probably made out of clay, which is physically delicate. The way to go is probably to sit them all in a frame with vegetation for padding, move the frame slightly away somehow, and then adjust the frame corresponding to which direction the assembly falls into the padding. It’s probably worth it to use knapped clay points for the rotating stake just to reduce sticktion. Experimentation is needed, but unfortunately I don’t really have a good place to do it.

Once you’re done, easing the beam upwards and then fixing it tightly in place will allow you so start turning. There would still be some error, of course, both from the sources I mentioned and others, but that seems unavoidable. As long as the finished product is fairly close to a cone you can rotate the resulting bearings together dry in order to lap them to a tighter fit.

In case you’re curious about the next steps, you need cones in the first place because clay shrinks when drying and firing. Two similar cones will continue to fit together after rescaling, but hyperboloids won’t. The plan then is to use the turned cone as a master for female cones, which will themselves be used to make matching male cones. The two bearings will be placed large ends together, and held on a thickened section of the wooden axle, and any stationary frame, by rope tension. The male cones will then protrude out due to being smaller, allowing clearance for the axle to continue on.

The US political system is on the brink of failing. That’s not a brag.

You seem biased too, probably because you’re in the picture.