GreyEyedGhost

Time for a joke.

And economist and an accountant were taking a walk when they noticed a frog. The accountant says to the economist, "I'll give you $100 if you eat that frog." The economist thinks for a moment, then agrees. A little later they come across another frog, and the economist says, "I'll give you $100 to eat that frog." The accountant thinks about it for a second and also agrees. As they continue walking, the accountant says, "So I got to see you eat a frog for $100, and by eating a frog myself, I got my money back, so I understand why I did it. But you had already eaten a frog and had $100, so why did you do it?" The economist replies, "Ah, but this way it's twice as good for the economy!"

There is a hydrogen fusion reaction that releases beta particles, i.e., electrons. This could be used to produce electricity directly without boiling water, but I think the heat output would be such that you could also boil water for more electricity.

I honestly agree, and said as much shortly after the invasion of Ukraine. Based on the world's assessment, they should have just steamrolled them, and didn't. I also said it would behoove the world powers to reassess their nuclear capability and got a lot of downvotes. The facts as they stand now, though, is the NK can't get a nuke to American territory, not even Alaska (let's not talk about Guam and Samoa, even America barely acknowledges they're part of America). Russia, on the other hand, might be able to, and we don't know for sure they can't. All they need is one good sub with working missiles. None of this really matters for Europe, and even 10% of their stockpile working would be devastating for the world, or at least the people living on it. I'd like to think that Putin put more effort into maintaining their status as a nuclear world power, but I would have thought the same of being a military world power, too.

It asks for the most recent bread purchase. Technically, it doesnt even have to be from the Loblaws family, although I don't know if putting anything else would disqualify you. It also doesn't say prior to 2022, so what you bought in the last week would also be correct. That makes it easier to answer, I suppose.

Yes, those things can be done, and they're good ideas. One key difference between the U.S. and North Korea thing is that Russia can, or at least is believed to be able to, use a nuclear response anywhere in the world. North Korea couldn't threaten the U.S. with nuclear reprisal. But, yes, removing the entrenched and uncompromising leader is the first step, and that is much harder against a nuclear power.

There is also Veronica Explains. One more reason to get off Lemmy and onto PieFed.

I would say about the same number of people are offended by profanity in public as they are religious acts in public. Moreover, I would estimate the number who are offended by sex acts in public is much higher than either of these. So, for the sake of other people's sensibilities, shall we ban public profanity?

Well, it was also proven that the Shuttle was a generally unsafe design. That seems like a good reason to unilaterally decommission anything.

Of course, none of that is possible against a nuclear power, because it first relies on unconditional surrender. I also don't think any leaders in the world have to political will to do that, either.

I don't hate them because they're women, I hate them for what they eat! Which they do because they're female. 🤔

I'd say harming mosquitoes (females only, that feed on blood) is better than vegan!

Well, this isn't a unique concept. The fact it goes horrible pretty quickly and people keep falling for it is the truly impressive part.