As a newcomer to CLIs, GUI are great because you don't need to know what you're looking for. I can just open the devices window, and they're all there, with most of the extra hardware stuff that's not actually a real device already cleaned out.

To do the same with a CLI would take me 10 minutes of looking up what the hardware commands are, 5 minutes figuring out flags, and 30 minutes researching entries to see if they're important. Even just a collapsible list would make that last step so much easier. And no, I can't grep for what I need, because I don't know what I need, I just know something in there is important with a vague idea of what it might look like.

Once I figure that all out for one thing, the best I can do is write that to a notes file so I don't need to search so far next time, but there's a good chance that I'll need a different combination of commands next time anyway.

Not hating on CLIs, just wishing I could figure out how to use them faster.

Uninhabitable? Most of the evacuations were unnecessary, and there would have been less loss-of-life if most people sheltered in-place. In the year following the event, nearby residents received less than 20% of lifetime natural background radiation, about 2 chest CT scans, or a bit more than an airline crew, and less than a heavy smoker.

As for waste, dry casks are plenty good. The material is glassified, so it can't leach into ground water, and the concrete casing means you get less radiation by sitting next to one, as even natural background radiation is partially blocked. Casks are also dense enough for on-site storage, needing only a small lot to store the lifetime fuel use of any plant. A pro and a con of this method is that the fuel is difficult to retrieve from the glass, which is bad for fuel reprocessing, but good for preventing easy weapons manufacturing.

Meanwhile, coal pollution kills some 8 million people annually, and because the grid is already set up for it, when nuclear plants close they are replaced with coal or oil plants.

Upgrading the grid is expensive, and large-scale storage is difficult, and often untested. Pumped hydro is great for those places that can manage it, but the needed storage is far greater, and in locations without damable areas. Not only would unprecidented storage be necessary, but also a grid that's capable of moving energy between multiple focus points, instead of simply out of a plant. These aren't impossible challenges, but the solutions aren't here yet, and nuclear can fill the gap between decommissioning fossil fuels and effective baseline storage.

Solar and Wind don't have the best disposal record either, with more efficient PV cells needing more exotic resources, and the simple bulk of wind turbines making them difficult to dispose of. And batteries are famously toxic and/or explosive. Once again, these challenges have solutions, but they aren't mature and countries will stick with proven methods untill they are. That means more fossil fuels killing more people unnecessary. Nuclear can save those people today, and then allow renewable grids to be built when they are ready.

Electrons are suspiciously close to spinning dynamos, so even just moving electrons might be considered spinning something.

A hot stove has it's uses as well.

Width does affect how many asteroids you need to clear, so I suppose it is astrodynamic.

Yeah, hydrocarbons are probably going to be really good energy storage for airplanes and gas turbine generators. Outside of that, I don't see much use for a rare, dirty, hot, energy source. Rockets I guess.

I can see the different levels of quote, but there's also spaces between them. Too many line breaks maybe?

Your reader might not support nested quotes though.

If you want waydroid to see files on the host, you need to muck around with bind-mounting a directory, or just using abd to move files manually.

I think waydroid can't see anything beyond itself normally. I had a hell of a time trying to get files on there, so if there's an easy way to get Waydroid to see files on the host, I couldn't find it.

One of it's purrrposes is to shake wounds and increase bloodflow. This is why cats sometimes pur after conflict; they're licking their wounds in multiple ways.

This is a bit of an issue when what they want out of the oil is the energy. If you have enough energy to make oil, why not just use the energy directly?

Agreed. While I realize I am making some fuss about being right, being left and able to try again is far more important.

I'd much prefer those over cursive characters. I can tell those apart when written by hand.

One of my default phone keyboards had them. Either an old bersion of Gboard, or the Samsung keyboard.

Ah, a definition of life in Namibia for a grade 12 course. Quite the scientific authority you have there.

Here's a short paper (Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 32, 387-393, 2002) that refutes your position that a single definition of life is definitively agreed upon.

Here's a paper (Synthese, 2012) on how a definition of life is impossible and pointless.

There is a species of dog that infects other dogs as a parasite. There are viruses with larger genomes than some bacteria. Obligate parasites and endosymbiotes often lose large portions of their genome and depend on their hosts for their vital functions. Nature doesn't care about are definitions, and biology hates hard cutoffs.

By that same logic, should president Truman have been ousted after WWII? Should the Canadian trucker convoy have torched parliament? Should all governments decend into chaos as soon as any group doesn't like them?

I'm not saying this specific turn of events shouldn't be resisted, I'm looking for better logic, a reason why the rules shouldn't apply here. Something like the overt and immediate threat to people's wellbeing and freedom. It doesn't matter how good or bad this administration is going to be according to an individual, it matters that they're going to cause a lot of unnecessary harm to a lot of people. Subjective opinions are how we got here.

Maybe we're past the point of that mattering, perhaps a critical mass of people just want to cause harm and a lot of fucked up shit is inevitable, but I do hope to keep a sense of ethics and justice to rebuild when the fight for existence ends. I don't want to become the uncritical extremists we're fighting against.

Sure, I agree with most of that. Dwarf planets not being planets feels intentionally confusing though, and the definition is basically Major/Minor planet anyway. A planet having hydrostatic equilibrium is such an elegant and applicable limit, yet the current definition specifically counts only bodies that clear orbits (how is poorly defined) around this star. It's a bad definition in several ways, and many astronomers have already complained about this. Many use planet anyway, particularly planetary scientists.

It's all about how useful the word is, and putting the limit at our star and a vague idea being the biggest thing in one general area feels more like it's gatekeeping the word "planet" rather than facilitating understanding or discriminating something useful. Planets can change class simply by drifting closer or farther away from the sun, or even be temporarily demoted by a rogue planet.

most would agree that the best definition would be the one that has the biggest consensus amongst biologists, and maybe more precisely microbiologists.

This is precisely the part I disagree with. Consensus isn't truth, and better definitions are likely possible. Not that consensus even exists here, the specific definition of life is controversial and several definitions are used in different areas. Homeostatic reproducers, replicators, entropy pumps, chemical system that evolve; it's almost as bad as double-slit interpretations.

And most such definitions you'd find would include "self-replication" as a necessary trait.

Replication? Sure. Self-replication? That's either an incredibly arbitrary limit seeminly designed to specifically exclude viruses, or isn't applicable to anything except perhaps the entire tree of life as a whole. Where is the line of "self" drawn? As a human, you can't replicate yourself, you need other organisms to collect energy for you and to make some proteins for you, and a sexual partner. Tapeworms need their hosts to digest food for them; cuckoos need other birds to feed and raise their chicks; E.coli needs other organisms to feed them and maintain a suitable environment; clonally transmissible dogs need another dog for all nutrients, and protection; and viruses need cells to provide the replication hardware. Some viruses even have some of the genes necessary for DNA copying and protein synthesis, and can be infected by smaller viruses themselves.

I'm 50-50 on this. Peaceful transition of power is about respecting the decision of the people. A reasonable reason to buck the peaceful transition would be if it didn't align with the will of the people, but that will is so obfusicated and twisted that I can't tell what it even is anymore. If you have an issue with the transition, you should have an issue with the process that got you there. Bucking only the transition isn't attacking the issue, it's throwing a tantrum because you lost.

A miscarriage of justice isn't solved with a pardon, it needs systemic changes. The rules are wrong, and ignoring them sometimes won't make things right. What I would respect is rebuilding the system to be more representative and less able to be twisted. Gerrymandering, conflicts of interest, voting availability, lobbying, voter knowledge, even the journalism industry as a whole; there are lots of huge problems out there, ignoring those resorting to an armed "nuh uh" at the last moment is stupid.

That said, installing a dictator has never gone well, and being petty and stupid is probably worth avoiding that. It's probably worth quite a bit more really. So I wouldn't like it, but I really couldn't complain.

It's the zip file, it can't do anything until a system unzips it. The resulting program can be really small and still do a lot, especially if it modifies another program.

I disagree. At one time, consensus was the Earth was the center of the universe, that the world was just a few thousand years old, that life just sprung into being sometimes, that unwashed hands were perfectly fine to perform surgery with, that some peoples were much closer to other animals than some other peoples, that the universe was static, that light was continuous, and that Ceres was a planet.

Consensus is nice, but usefulness is the gold standard. Is holding metabolism and a complex proteome as the limit of life --excluding viruses, preons, and mechanical reproducers-- useful to expanding our understanding of life and how it functions? Is taking replicators as the most important distinction a necessary step to understanding the origin of life and how we can engineer it ourselves? Will the ability to manipulate certain chemicals and not others help us describe the world? Are edge cases explained better with a genomic, proteomic, or metabolomic base?

I do know that we have a lot left to learn, and I would be very surprised if our current definition of life is fully sufficient for the next century of life sciences.

Another example; mammals probably developed pregnancy using an Autoimmune virus' genes in the placenta to prevent the fetus from being destroyed by the immune system.