• 0 Posts
  • 74 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: August 20th, 2025

help-circle


  • It’s amazing how much it takes for some to reach the conclusion that systemic change is both necessary and requires… systemic change. As in systems changing. As in greater change than your individual decision to ride an EV or ICEV or public transit. Change that would make it exponentially more intuitive for you to choose the most sustainable one of those options.

    Especially if mass transit is not feasible for you, this post is not to shame you or call on you to try and do it anyways. It’s a recognition that riding mass transit is not feasible or intuitive for most people, and a call to make mass transit available to more people rather than investing all that time and energy into the wild goose chase of EV adoption.

    The crying indian really did a number on us.




  • But also, since you’ve been so pleasant and asked so nicely,

    A single molecule of water is not wet but as soon as more than one molecule is present the water is then wet. If there are a substantial number of molecules, then you have the substances that we know as water and ice.

    The molecules themselves also are not solid or liquid, that has to do with the behavior of the molecules in dimensional space. At the level of everyday language, we are talking about substances, and generally when we refer to water we are talking about it as a liquid substance.

    Most liquid substances you could easily mix with water are themselves water-based and therefore would be totally dried up into a powder or perhaps a jelly without their water content. To add water is to make them wet, and then they exist as a wet incorporated substance. In fact, they could not dry up if they were not wet in the first place; to become dry is to transition away from the state of being wet.

    You know what else dries up? Water.







  • Fair enough, I was only looking at the dates and lining them up with the limited Russian history I am familiar with. I mean the alternative was still potentially complete Nazi occupation of Poland, if those lines weren’t drawn (Of course it’s a foregone conclusion that the Nazis were going to invade Poland) or to go to war with the Nazis and Poland as the battlefield in hopes of ending up with full Russian occupation, but I guess the distinction is important. I don’t claim to be an expert though, feel free to correct me or expand upon anything I’m missing.

    Edit: also the Russians didn’t invade until 16 days after the Nazis did, when Poland was already effectively defeated. Again, feel free to fill in the blanks. Cause to me it seems to me that the pact served as reassurance that the Nazis would stop their invasion at the line drawn, so that Russia could allow the invasion to play out (on the off chance of a Polish victory); rather than invading simultaneously and practically guaranteeing Polish defeat; without risking all of Poland becoming Nazi territory.