I don't know if there's a tactful way to do this. Maybe start by feeling out how much they understand about the cureent office politics situation in general?

25 minimum, no upper limit. Throwing away life experience and wisdom just to silence opposition to nEw AnD fReSh IdEaS is incredibly foolish.

It's an upgrade part for a 3d printer. Sorry about that; I'd been posting about that in another sub, and I pasted wrong. I'll fix the link.

It actually can happen, but it's rare.

I'm assuming you already know how rainbows are formed by light refracting through droplets of water. Double rainbows (which I'm going to call second-order rainbows here) happen when some of the light refracts immediately but some of it bounces around inside the droplet before escaping. It has to bounce twice to produce a double rainbow, amd because some of the light is lost with each bounce, the second rainbow is fainter than the first.

Higher-order rainbows are possible, and may not even be all that rare. The problem is that each order requires more bounces than the last, and because each bounce loses some light, the higher-order rainbows are harder to see. The first photograph of a triple rainbow in nature was only made in 2011, because the light has to be very bright and the sky has to be very clear. At least one person has managed to photograph a quintuple rainbow (fifth-order). This was done in 2014.

In laboratories, of course, it's possible to use much brighter lights and better conditions than those found in nature. In the mid-1800s, Felix Billet created up to 19th-order rainbows in his experiments. In 1998, scientists using lasers created up to 200th-order rainbows. What we weren't sure of until recently was whether you could get the right conditions to see more than two in nature. But it turns out that you can.

Congratulations on coming to your senses about this stuff. It's hard to do. What you're experiencing has a name -it's called moral injury- and while the nature of this particular kind of trauma makes it hard for many people to sympathize with (which is understandable), it's trauma nonetheless.

Like other kinds of trauma, the next step is to seek help. I'm not talking about family counseling here: this is just for you. This is partly to help deal with the trauma, and partly to deal with the issues that led to it in the first place. You've done wrong -you understand that now- but that doesn't have to be forever. You understand that you need to change, and that's an important step: one that many people never take. But it's still only the first step. Good luck on the rest.

Um... What's the Florida Republican Party's position on amending the Thirteenth Amendment to eliminate forced prison labor? Because I could see this bill backfiring really quickly depending on the answer.

More likely she's thinking about sex toys.

Seeing as that hasn't happened, I'm not sure it works for an example.

Basically they want to undermine freedom of association by forcing private entities to give a platform to Nazis.

This gets into SOH CAH TOA.

The sine of an angle is the ratio of the length of the opposite side to the length of the hypotenuse. In the unit circle, the length of the hypotenuse is 1. Anything divided by 1 is itself, so we don't have to really think about the division: the sine is just the opposite leg, and the cosine is just the adjacent leg.

But even though we don't have to think about the division in the unit circle, technically it still happens. This is what keeps rhe sine and cosine from changing when the size of the circle does. All circles are geometrically similar, so the sizes of the triangle's legs change in proportion to one another. That means their ratios -the sine and cosine- don't change. The unit circle just makes the math a little easier.

That commercial has been around for at least two years, and went viral ages ago. How is it they're only getting around to suing now?

Still exceeds mean life expectancy by over three standard deviations. Acceptable.

Sentence exceeds mean life expectancy by more than five standard deviations. Acceptable. I wonder what parole eligibility looks like.

I think he's just an asshole now. Not sure why he chose that path, but I'm not sure anything he's done really requires any more complex explanation than this.

CEOs can't put people in prison, and generally show some sense of accountability: only to their shareholders, perhaps, but that's better than most politicians. Less corrupting power, more accountability to kwep them relatively honest; why wouldn't they be seen as more trustworthy? They have more checks against their power.

I wonder what kind of hold the CCP must have on the Australian government to extract that kind of concession. Not requiring tests from a place where the hospitals are overflowing is unwise.

Nowadays it's thought that these methods are ineffective, but there is a need for pointe shoes to mold precisely to the feet of each individual dancer. It has until now been prohibitively expensive to custom-manufacture shoes for each individual dancer (except for major stars), so instead they manufacture shoes in such a way that a dancer can break them in by doing special exercises that not only strengthen the feet and legs, but also bring the shoe into shape. The older methods of "mutilating" pointe shoes were thought to be a shortcut for this.

Nowadays, some companies have been experimenting with 3D-printing pointe shoes, which would allow for a very close custom fit. This shows some promise.

The material has to be somewhere, but it might not be in that form anymore.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, ducks do have a penis, but it is a thing of nightmares. As is basically everything else about duck reproduction.

That depends to a certain extent on the context, but I do generally try to at least cringe.

This is where love language theory comes into play. There's a relatively short book called "The Five Love Languages", by Gary Chapman. It's flawed -the test in the back actually breaks pretty seriously with some rather important aspects of the theories laid forth- but it gets the point across. Get a physical copy of this. Be sure your wife sees you reading it. Leave it around, pique her curiosity. Yes, this is manipulative, and that isn't entirely cool, but unfortunately she has made it clear that she's going to have to think that reading this was her idea.

Because here's the thing: yes, actually, it is her job to teach you how to love her. That is the job of every romantic partner. There is no way around this, because there is no one way to love people: even though Chapman's book distills it down to five general themes, there are still so many variations that no two people are ever going to be alike. People aren't telepaths. We have no good way to learn about people other than talking to them.

Now, the above all said, the book isn't just for her. You do sound like you could use some coaching on general ideas, and the book should help in terms of inspiration. You probably already have some sense of things that haven't worked, and this may give you a sense of what you could try next. But if she thinks there's a single way to love people that can just be taught to people in childhood, then she doesn't sound like she's any more savvy about love than you are.

Ecce! In pictura est puella, nomine Cornelia. Cornelia est puella Romana quae in Italia habitat...

Although some people out there on the fringe of what we call knowledge have speculted about possible consciousnesss in plants, it's generally thought that plants don't know anything, at least not in the way we think about what it means to know something.

Evolution has only one rule: whoever dies with the most grandchildren wins. Plants don't seem to have "known" to be sweet or spicy or anything else. It just happened that the sweetest plants got spread the most, and (mostly) passed the things that made them so sweet on to their children. Do this enough times, and the whole species starts to taste sweeter. It's not exactly an accident -there are systems by which it works, and those systems can be used to predict how things are likely to go in the future- but as far as we can tell there is no mind behind it. It just worked, and so it kept on working.

Not an equal and opposite force, an equal and opposite reaction. The wagon does put an opposite force on the child, but can only put so much force into this. If the child is strong enough to overcome that force, then the wagon must make up the difference by reacting in some additional way, and that is where the motion comes from.

When you multiply, the first thing you do is take one number, and you think of it as a set of a certain size. It doesn't actually matter which of the two numbers you use, as long as you're consistent about it. So we'll say it's the first number, to keep things consistent.

So we have 51 objects. We'll think of this as a sit of little blocks, one inch on a side. They could instead be 1 centimeter, 1 mile, or whatever; what matters is each of these little blocks means 1. And we have 51 of them. Let's put them in a line. There are 51 blocks in the line, so the line is 51 long.

The next thing you do is you make a number of sets, the same size as that first one. The number of sets you make is equal to the second number (or really, whatever number you didn't use in the first step).

• If the second number is 0, then you don't actually have any sets. Throw away the first one, and your answer is zero. This is always true, no matter what the first number was: if you don't have any sets, you don't have anything.

• If the second number is 1, then you already have your one set. You made it in that last step. So that's your answer. 51 times 1 is 51. This is, once again, always true no matter what the other number is. (If it's zero times one you have a set that doesn't have anything in it, so you still have nothing.

• If the last number is anything else, you're going to make more sets, same as the first. Remember that that first set counts. So let's say the second number is 2, you have two of your lines of blocks, each of length 51.

Let's point all of these lines in the same direction, but then stack them on top of each other. So if the lines are horizontal, we stack them vertically, and vice versa. This turns our line into a rectangle. For our 51 * 2 problem, it's 51 long and 2 high. For 51 * 52, it's 51 long and 52 high. This is the key to understanding multiplication: what you're really doing is making rectangles.

Now, the answer to our multiplication goes back to the blocks: how many do you have, in total? Each block, remember, is 1. You could just count the blocks, but those numbers can get pretty big pretty quickly: even for 51 * 2 there are 102 blocks total, and for 51 * 52 there are actually thousands of blocks (2652 of them, to be precise). You really don't want to count all those blocks yourself, if you can avoid it: counting will work, but it takes a long time. And that's where all this stuff where we fiddle with these numbers comes into play. It's all just shortcuts to avoid having to count out those blocks. But in the end, it's all about making rectangles. And that goes in reverse: every rectangle you make is a multiplication problem.

Does this help?