How would it encourage the behavior? If they fire and forget, they aren’t looking at downvotes anyway.

His only stable clone was a girl, he’s smaller than most of the other boys his age, and he’s bullied for his perceived lack of masculinity.

Really makes you think.

Yeah, and it’s so strange, Danny Fenton is clearly trans 🤔

This is exactly like when gun lovers try to say “this isn’t the time to discuss gun laws” and “they would have found a way to hurt people regardless”. Zero difference.

But actually this is exactly when we should argue about the existence of cars: someone just performed a live demonstration of how dangerous they are in the hands of someone who wants to kill people. Without a car, mass killing would be much much harder and it would also be possible for people to defend themselves or escape the danger. Cars also enable impulse killings in a way knives don’t, because carrying a knife has to be premeditated whereas with a car the murder weapon is always readily available.

Chelsea* Manning

But, yeah, most people just do not care if they are spied on because they don’t think it will be used for anything besides advertising. Trump is going to wake a lot of people up to the immense power we’ve handed over to our tech overlords.

You could dab it with a little paint or glue or something.

Over a million people around the world die because of cars every year. The most recent number I found for Canada was 1,998 people.

Let’s compare that to knives. The most recent number I found for Canada was 138 people stabbed to death. Globally, 97k. Orders of magnitude in difference.

Most vehicle deaths are accidents, but you can’t ignore the fact that cars kill far more people than knives.

I don’t like cars, and one of the reasons is because they’re extremely deadly and driving is basically the most dangerous thing we do on a regular basis.

But not anything could be used as a mass murder weapon. Killing nine people with a kitchen knife would also be quite hard (technically possible if the attacker gets lucky, but still more likely to result in the attacker dying)

The fact that cars are all potential mass murder weapons isn’t my primary reason for wanting to ban cars, but it’s totally a reason.

The tool is very relevant when it enables greater amounts of violence.

Killing nine people with your fists is extremely hard and you’d probably die trying. A car, gun, or bomb makes it much easier.

It helps when you reframe math as a puzzle, because then it becomes a game. It’s not interesting unless you make it interesting.

“New Math” kind of tries to do this, although then you run into the problem of parents being unable to help their kids with homework.

I consider my appearance to be armor. I put on makeup and cute clothes and style my hair so I can face the world. Helps my social anxiety.

Also, totally doesn’t take that much time. 20 minutes max once you get into the habit of it.

If lab grown teeth give me better reception then I’m all for it!

That makes sense, but it’s still strange because it means in the case of a fire the entire building has to be treated the same anyway because there is something in the building that reacts with water even if its separate.

I guess it is helpful to indicate that there are multiple substances that have different reaction profiles, but it still seems strange to me.

The reason for listing them separately is because each individual chemical has its own ratings. You can’t simply take the highest of each and combine them into a single sign. For instance, in this case one chemical isn’t flammable but is explosive when heated. The other chemical is flammable but not explosive. So if you see a chemical on fire, you know it’s the second chemical and isn’t explosive. But if you see something that isn’t burning in a room full of fire, you know it’s a potential powder keg waiting to explode.

Okay, so the two signs on the building have a weird combination.

The sign on the left indicates something that isn’t flammable, but reacts with water. The sign on the right indicates something that is flammable, but there’s no risk of reacting to water. If the building caught fire then a first responder on the scene has to read both signs at the same time. They can’t spray the building with water because the non-flammable substance would react with the water.

So why aren’t the signs combined? They have to be treated the same anyway.

Sure, but I don’t think the building should have two labels. I think it should have one label that reflects a warning for everything in the building.

Imagine you have a crate with two different chemicals. The chemicals are in different bottles so they aren’t mixed, and each bottle has its own label.

Should the crate have two unidentified labels like this, or one? There’s no indication what those labels refer to on the building.

But the building, as a whole, pesents the combined risk of both chemicals.

But it’s just slapped on the side of the building with no indication of which chemicals the labels are for, I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to be done. It’d be like mixing two chemicals into a bottle and then putting two labels on it.

I think there should just be one label that combines the warning levels of both i.e. 3-2-2-W

As others have said, these are NFPA signs.

What I want to know is why there are two different ones. What the hell does that mean?

People are being sent to concentration camps.

Without revolution, things stay the same. Risk death on your feet or live on your knees.

Sometimes you can get lucky and avoid revolution, and we should always strive for those peaceful alternatives, but sometimes there’s no other choice.