Scipitie

Not the person you asked but for me:

It's because they're a documentation mess caught in a release/stable discussion that I don't understand.

Perhaps that changed in the last year, haven't looked into them again since then - but unless there's a trigger (new server setup or official release for example) I simply don't have the time and energy to invest.

The second part of your text I'd classify as nearly textbook subjectivism ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism ).

The first part is more complicated. If I recall that debate got kicked off by Descartes with cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am.

Then Hume followed up with questioning if a stable self exists at all and later Nietzsche who stated that what we call "I" is only a bundle of instincts and enjoying that we are too overcome.

The English names for those teachings I don't know though, sorry.

A philosopher arguing for the complete non existence of self is not known to me and it would be hard for me to follow to be honest. To freely quote a whale: who is that I that does the thinking and asking anyway?

Edit: language

I really like the question, thank you! The answer is a clear "yes, but":

Your assumption is absolutely correct, light surfaces reflect more light back and heat up less because of this.

Noe if your display heats up less depends on the amount of energy it uses to generate that white:

For an e ink display it would be basically the same as a bright vs dark paper of the same color. But OLED for example uses constant energy to generate the white image: So it's depending on how bright the sun shines vs how much heat gets generated by the display itself.

Still only looking at the sun's energy it would be smaller. If the overall temperature would be lower depends on exactly how bright the sun would be vs how efficient the specific display is!

Posting on mobile, worked in desktop so no links. Don't as why please :p

Ok I dug a bit into the Firefox code (that's where it's from). If I understand it correctly that query is part of the nameserver init.

It comes from the file nsEffectiveTLDService.dat and seems to be used by the cpp of the same name.

My c++ is not good enough to understand how or why though - I guess it's a fallback or validation or something. Can't see anything malicious though!

Still nice find, thanks a lot for that rabbit hole!

The magic seems to be on what comes next - the log you posted looks to me like w normal DNS query via your cgnat (the 100.x.x.x ip) and that got answered by centralnic as the SOA. If that's because your DND is configured that way or the request for cascaded until the SOA had to answer I see no way of telling for sure.

For the reason why: as it's right at the startup I'd guess update check or telemetry - those are my go-to suspects:)

Raising it lowering the container works only if it is not protected from environmental pressure - but you're right: creating two different pressure environments that are somehow connected is ready in a thought experiment but then you tell that to the engineer and they get their third heart attack of the week...

I'm writing only based on your text, not the video, please excuse any doubling of content.

It is easier explained if you build an imaginary machine instead of lifting / lowering that does the same thing. The single most important thing to understand is that the lower the pressure the less heat you need to add to boil something. There are funny graphs for each liquid (for example https://courses.lumenlearning.com/umes-cheminter/chapter/vapor-pressure-curves/ ).

The intro explanation

The water in your containers will behave based on their individual combination of pressure and temperature. I'd at any point the water vapor falls below its boiling point at the current pressure it starts to form a liquid. At this point you've made a fancy rain machine.

Note that water itself adds pressure to a system because of its volume even as a gas

A machine

Imagine you have a container at 100 mmHg which according to a random online calculator leads to a boiling temperature of 50 degrees C.

Now you heat this up and lead the water vapor into another chamber which has only s pressure of 10 mmHg. Water has a boiling temperature of only a bit over 10C there! So you keep it at 20C to be sure the water never gets liquid again.

But wait: now you're adding water vapor into a low pressure container - you're literally pressing a gas into it - so you increase the pressure in there.

The first container, the source of the gas, becomes irrelevant: As soon as the additional water increases the pressure to around 20mmHg it starts condensation again as now it's boiling point moved above the 20 degrees.

The flaws

As you've asked for the downsides: it's a very convoluted way of manipulating water to achieve the same result as simply heating it. You would need way more energy to lift the containers far enough or otherwise decrease the pressure than the energy needed to boil it.

Other than energy and logistics I don't see a downside. Liquids don't behave differently in terms of boiling no matter the source: pressure, temperature or a combination.

The thing limiting it most is the last sentence, the rest I've seen as well :D

That's sad :( I mean I see people without helmets as well on a regular basis but the "because of looks" irritates me I have to admit. Perhaps I'm just naturally filtering those people and I'm just "protected" by my bubble

Even in this utopia I see the need because any crash can be dangerous for the head. I just don't get the idea behind "oh no, my priorities are with my hair, not my brain".

I'm completely with you.

I have literally never hear of "helm sceptics" and this sounds like a made up controversy to me to be frank.

Then you threw in a source list longer then my attention span which I'm very grateful for!

Would you mind giving a bit of context for where you're from? The worst thing I've heard in Germany is "everyone should be free to choose and it's my head I risk" which, while not agreeing with, I can understand.

Thanks in advance!

You put the finger in the wound with that ruleset though - first the negative of what you've said:

if you don't allow debt to be calculated against you fuck Up people who literally want to invest in their future (buying machinery for their dream job for example).

If you do allow debt dedication then you get the status quo: oh I do owe a yacht but I have w huge debt on that - sure I have a collateral against that debt but here is clever accounting and suddenly the net worth of the billionaire is negative on paper.

I really like what you've described, I only lack the fantasy on how to avoid this banking exploitation by peiple who are smarter and more ruthless than me. :(