Wheat, rice, barley, rye, corn, millet… Even bamboo is grass!

Well done grass. You really won this round.

Totally agree. The general concept of calculus is pretty straightforward. The implementation of calculus is an exercise of algebra.

Love your optimism

Hey, thanks for your concern. I’m asking tons of questions, don’t worry. Unfortunately the last 3 keepers of this code are no longer around to ask, thus the staring at code.

I honestly needed to hear this today, so thank you. I’m at work trying to work out someone else’s uncommented code and have just been staring at it mumbling to myself. I’m new to the position so I’m anxious my new coworkers will think I’m just dicking around… This is the validation I needed. Thanks everyone!

Where can I find the high res image?

You’re right. I was being very Ameri-centric. I subconsciously interchange free speech and the first amendment even though they are not equal.

I do believe that individuals and private institutions should have this right to react though. I don’t agree with how it was used in this situation, but I absolutely believe the hospital should have the right to terminate someone based on the opinions they openly share.

If this same employee was sharing an anti-vax opinion I would want the hospital to be able to remove them from the role.

That is not what free speech means.

Free speech means the government cannot prohibit free speech. A private institution can take any lawful action they want in retaliation/reaction.

I agree that it really sucks that saying something true can get you fired, but this isn’t an infringement of the first amendment.

It is a politically savvy and ethically correct move. Really nice when those line up.

The argument I’m making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don’t have the capacity to make chemical reactions.

An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don’t want it, it’s a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It’s still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).

You make a good point. I should have said “things in the plasma state” should not be considered chemicals.

Hydrogen and Helium are elements, I guess it depends on what your definition of a chemical is.

The reason I’m saying plasma is not a chemical is because it is too energetic to make atom to atom bonds which I feel is the basis for chemistry. If something cannot interact chemically I feel we should not consider it a chemical.

Please note that I did not look up any formal definitions, just expressing my reasoning for my argument. (Aka I’m probably wrong).

I think plasma isn’t a chemical since the elements can’t form molecules. So the sun and lightning aren’t chemicals.

Humans gotta human!

I get the sentiment, but this is a pretty strawman argument.

Hard to tell if this is a proposal to fight over hardware or an offer for free stuff.

I choose to believe the former because it makes me chuckle more.

I agree with you, but I don’t think it means we stop the pursuit. It won’t be viable or cheap enough in time to help in the transition off fossil fuels. If it does pay off the way some people think it may be a viable energy source for carbon sequestration to undo some of our stupidity though. I think it’s worth that moonshot.

I like this concept. I do think it would generally slow resource extraction because companies would be more wary to invest in the large infrastructure if they don’t have perpetual ownership of the land. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, just an outcome I think is likely.

I think these are reasonable suggestions to make society more equitable. Do you disagree with any of them? Or just don’t like them because they modify the existing system instead of tearing it all down?

This is a great write up. I think the problem with economic theory discussions is it is an extremely complex and nuanced topic. Saying ‘capitalism bad’ is popular, but not very constructive.

I think one big point that gets bungled in these economic debates is markets. That’s supposed to be the shining light of capitalism because of how efficient markets are at allocating scarce resources. The point that I think is missed, is that markets can be used very effectively outside of a capitalist system. They need to be designed for other economic systems, but they can easily handle the biggest argument with socialism; centralized control.

I feel that is a major point missing in these debates and I just wanted to give it some attention.