Now you’re on about low pay, what are you even talking about? Changing companies is the best thing for increasing salary and you’re here acting like a child terrified of losing your job… have you ever even worked at a company on salary? You sound like you’re talking about something you are clueless about. Stop being so afraid, go change jobs.

He looked at me. And I looked at him. And he looked at me. And I looked at him. And he says what did you want again?

The best sin is at the beach! Why? Cos tan.

I love linear algebra! It’s one of the coolest and most satisfying maths (for me personally)

Depends on the incline, too steep and you can start slipping

Hmm, I’m not sure how to correctly word my question.

It was really just aimed at the implication in the comment I replied to that if this were true, we should have seen evidence for it in telescopes already. So my question was, what phenomena would we expect to see because of these topological defects that we don’t already see and have attributed to dark matter.

As far as I’m aware (which really isn’t that far tbh) gravitational lensing is explained without needing any new hypotheses. But if dark matter was implicated in it to heighten the effect, that would still be something we have seen in our telescopes which could be explained by this so it still would answer the comment to which I replied as being something we have observed.

Edit: OK I looked it up and yeah dark matter (or another explanation) is required to account for the amount of lensing we see. But still, that’s a thing we have observed so I guess my question would be, does this new idea not account for the same effect? If it does, that should answer the comment I was replying to.

Isn’t the point of this that it explains the phenomena that is commonly attributed to dark matter? Therefore wouldn’t the things we observe that would point to this be the same things that we observe that point to dark matter? I guess the thing I don’t understand is why we would expect to observe something different because of this than what we attribute to dark matter.

I don’t understand any of this so this question isn’t snarky but something I’m actually wondering. How would we be able to see “topological defects” in space with telescopes?

It doesn’t matter if it looked like a real gun, or even if it WAS a real gun. He had a real gun too, should he also have been shot for having a real gun that looked like a real gun?

And you explained all of that WITHOUT THE OBNOXIOUS GODDAMNS and FUCKIN SCIENCE AMIRITEs

Down with specificity! We want the confusion that arises from ambiguity! Things were confusing in my day and I will not put up with people being able to understand each other! Harrumph to you good sir! A harrumph and another harrumph for good measure!

How would linking one of the many posts you saw “all over twitter” break your anonymity?

Privacy compromised!

It’s relatively cheap for their masters, but they won’t buck the leash that got them into their position