Seven years ago I was looking for something BIFL. I looked at crystal, I had used metal before.

I bought a 144 box of Medline Emery boards for $6 and I still have half a box. (And I habitually file my nails.) Very happy with their performance also.

Maybe when it comes to choking yourself, the cons outweigh the pros. You aren't so fixated on happy chemicals that you're sitting there asphyxiating for pleasure, right? So why would any other humans do it?

The gene would only evolve away with certainty if it affected survival, which would require a large part of the population to have choked themselves for fun and died from it until there were a few people who didn't enjoy it and therefore didn't die.

Applying some fancy co2 absorbing material to wood makes the material work 8 times better and also makes it more stable or something.

Why what part is industry incapable of doing?

Treating lumber with chemicals?

The article so much better written and well informed than the comments.

Stronger wood could mean using less concrete, which I think is the number one source of carbon emissions. We stopped using wood for huge buildings because it was flammable and concrete and steel were stronger.

But fire prevention has improved incredibly, in building construction, the work that the Underwriters lab does, fire detection and suppression,

Maybe one day we'll see skyscrapers that are closer to carbon neutral.

It's weird how conservative politicians understand the long game when it comes to corporate wealth and power, but when an opportunity comes to sell out the countries future, suddenly they want short sighted populism that disregards fiscal conservative policies.

I wondered too. It reads a lot like the smartest 9th grader around. And I don't understand the motivation to make a post about what you think is the most significant event in history, with very obvious introductory and concluding sentences.

To me it describes willingly conforming to negative freedom. The freedom where you only act within a set of constraining social norms telling you what not to do. It's just explained from a different angle. It's literally though shalt not because of social norms, except you're sooo happy and consciously free because you're not exhibiting full positive freedom beyond social norms.

Sounds much better than "negative freedom" when you put it that way.

Anyone who can receive the signal from your router can see through the walls. Your router doesn't know where you are in your house.

The article probably answers your questions if you care to click it.

Spectacular corrections, but one small tidbit that's barely related but does break some reasonable assumptions: human babies, at some point in development, do some amount of breathing, and what they breath in and out is amniotic fluid (just for practice, not for gas exchange.)

Saying emperor is basically the same as saying Caesar, And that's added to the fact that they've appended the name of every mentor they've had onto their name. It's not mostly qualifiers, it's actually mostly names I think. Lol

A squared circle is a terrible example of a paradox. There's much more going in with the phrase than one would interpret in a geometric sense.

The circle in question is not a prototypical circle, they are referring colloquially to a circle on the ground where it is customary to engage in hand to hand combat. Squared is altering that meaning, not the meaning of a prototypical circle.

Squared circle means we have an area meant for combat (just like it's round counterparts that tradition cemented into our language), except this one is square.

It sort of fits into a pattern of "isn't it crazy we drive on the parkway and park in the driveway." Yea.. that's what we call it.. crazy huh.

One might even say that it > lay beyond the framework of signification

Whats your estimate on how much data exists in one human body