Jump to content

SquishMitten

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    5793
  • Joined

Posts posted by SquishMitten

  1. Here’s the explanation for those of y’all too lazy to click and/or don’t have FB
     

    A bit of science.

    I've got several comments regarding the fact that the videos I posted these days must be fake. Someone thinks the videos are sped up (I never speed up videos, unless specifically stated), some others claim that it's fake because the snow doesn't produce steam when touched by the lava.

    Here I try to explain why the latter phenomenon happens.

    In the abstract of a paper published in 1984 by A. A. Mills called "Pillow lavas and the Leidenfrost effect" is stated: "This is made possible by the Leidenfrost effect, the phenomenon whereby film boiling replaces the usual nucleated boiling above a certain temperature, thereby forming an insulating sheath of vapour around any sufficiently hot body immersed in a liquid. Only on cooling below a certain temperature (defined as the Nukiyama temperature) will rapid heat exchange occur between water and hot, gas-free lava."

    This applies in the situation shown in the video. In easy words, when the water, or the snow in this case, is touched by a superheated surface (the lava) it forms a very thin layer of steam which protects the snow. It would take a bit longer, and a bit of cooling, to start producing plumes (nucleated boiling). Since lava moves fast, it covers the snow before that can happen.

    Regarding the speed, that's the actual speed of Thursday's lava flow. I have no need to speed it up for whatever reason. Basaltic lava, with that low content of silica and temperature over 1100°C, moves fast, even on a quasi-flat surface.

    So, before you waste your time vomiting your statements under some content, use it to study a bit of lava rheology or thermodynamics. Then we can have a constructive discussion.

    One thing is for sure, from me, you will never get fake videos or composite footage. That's not my style, and I have no need to change that.

    © Marco Di Marco/Volcano Chaser
    • 08.02.2024
    .
    .
    .
    #iceland🇮🇸 #visiticeland #visitreykjanes #wheniniceland #reykjanes #eruption #svartsengi #dji #science #geology #basalt #eldgos #magma #lava #lavafield #hraun #volcano #rocks #landscape #latergram #instapic #instagood #instagram #igers #igersiceland #reeloftheday #reels #reelsinstagram

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  2. 2 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

    But the rub is that one not need to violate the LAW of insurrection to have violated constitutional definition of insurrection. If anything the constitutional definition can be more ambiguous or loosely defined and the criminal be more narrow…. Just not visa versa.

    The thing that sucks here is that bc there is a law definition of insurrection that people and seemingly these justices want to apply it to the constitution and that’s not how this should work.

    Taking a very originality perspective should lead one to come to the conclusion that Bc the amendment doesn’t spell out a specific def, that the court should defer to those judges or lower government officials who decide what a constitutional definition of insurrection is unless it is so egregious so as to in no way be determined to be insurrection. For them to overrrule Colorado is super activist IMO is antithetical to just calling balls and strikes.

     

    I’ll agree with where you started that it shouldn’t be vice versa, but I don’t follow the rest of your arguement. The Constitution is what it is. I think we can all agree that Congress then generally gets to further define what certain things mean, and SCOTUS gets to decide if what Congress enacts is in line with the intent of the Constitution. But when the Constitution doesn’t perfectly state its purpose (e.g., you can’t be President if you weren’t born here), there’s nothing to debate. Insurrection is not perfectly defined; thus, Congress has the authority to spell it out more specifically. There are criminal statutes that more succinctly define it (admittedly, I’m making an assumption on that point based on other posts, but I think the point is valid whether that is true or not).  When enacted, everybody knew exactly what it meant so they shortsightedly didn’t spell it out perfectly. Unfortunate, but I get it. We’d hopefully do it better now, but imagine if there was a Constitutional amendment tomorrow that said “anybody who participated in an attack to disrupt the certification of elections is barred from holding office” (or something along those lines), and a hundred years from now, a group of mouthbreathers attacked the Supreme Court building while they were hearing oral arguments on an election case. Would that count under the law I just hypothesized? 
     

    Fuck it. I’m tired and don’t want to write anymore. I’m sure there’s obvious points/counterpoints in my argument that I skipped over because they seem obvious to me. I hate the orange POS, but I don’t think SCOTUS should affirm CO’s ruling as is. If in the next case they decide he’s immune, then we’re officially turbo fucked 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 6 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

    Perceived legitimacy.  Without it the court is neutered.  He absolutely cares about that.  

    No, it’s not neutered. It has the same authority regardless of anyone’s opinion of it. 

  4. 3 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

    I flew to Atlanta on January 12–other than the North Carolina trip, which was for my birthday, I’ve been in Atlanta and I’m still here. We got to Woodstock and Roswell etc…nearby but that’s it. Plus, my cell phone records and postings here will confirm. Also, I have photographic evidence and purchases. I have receipts. Lots! And witnesses and shit like that. 

    Nicole, nobody actually think’s you’re the killer. You don’t need to keep making posts to support your alibi … as fake as it clearly is. 

    • Like 1
  5. 13 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

    Good answer by Murray on why President wasn't listed.

     

    I had to take a call right after the question was asked so I didn't hear the answer, but I see two very big possibilities. Starting with this....

    13 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

    seems the natural reading of "Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" is what KBJ is saying.  a state can't put a piece of shit up as its representation in the government.  those are fundamentally different positions than the president that represents everyone that every state only has a partial say in.

    .... This is a reasonable interpretation, and I saw that for two reasons:  First, when written, it would be reasonable to assume they believed that a) someone who had committed insurrection couldn’t possibly win an election (e.g., they couldn’t fathom that the confederate states would have enough voting power to get someone like Davis elected as President as opposed to winning a Senator/Rep) and/or b) if someone who had committed insurrection WAS elected as president (which was ultimately made possible by flaws with the electoral college), then shouldn’t they be allowed to take office? Isn’t that the ultimate goal of a democracy? If the “majority” of the country believes a person should be president in spite of a constitutional clause, then isn’t that the will of the people saying they don’t agree with that part of the Constitution anymore? In other words, if they are supported by the “majority” then shouldn’t that be reason enough to allow them to take office? The second point someone falls apart when you compare it to age and birthplace limitations that everyone agrees can’t be superseded, but I can’t entirely disagree with the argument that those restrictions aren’t fundamentally different than the insurrection clause in their purpose, although I personally believe “committed insurrection” is a much more disqualifying reason than someone being 34 years old or born in Canada and lived all but the first few days of their lives in the US. I guess the point I’m making is that if someone like Trump could be re-elected, then isn’t that the entire point of our Democracy? Even if it means the end of it?

    Having said all that, I want it to be absolutely clear that I don’t think he should be permitted to hold the office, I don’t believe he should be allowed to live another day outside of a jail cell, and according to the constitution, should probably be executed for treason.
     

      

  6.  

    9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

    image.png.0e280600e9b1a3d04cbe6ca1356c7564.png

    Lol

    It’s a legitimate question. That will be argued by several states if SCOTUS rules Trump ineligible, and it would make it to SCOTUS. 

  7. 27 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

    Unlike Judge Judy and the TV judges, a good judge with the proper judicial demeanor will not be rude or snarky to someone delivering an appellate argument.  You might get skewered a bit in the actual decision and the logic of your argument or your ability to correctly understand case precedent might be indirectly questioned -  but I do not expect disrespect or Snark from SCOTUS in an oral argument. 
    Also, don’t read too much into the justices’ demeanor in asking questions. They often ask questions to drill down on a certain point.  What seems to be a friendly judge talking with counsel is often that Justice narrowing a point and getting admissions, so that Justice can later do a kill-shot on that point.  

    Very much all of this. If you’re new to listening to these things it’s very easy to entirely misread a judge. Comments like “assume I agree with you on that point” do NOT mean they agree. Typically, that means “if I ultimately agree with that point, then I know what comes next so I don’t need to hear more about that from you” or “I already have my decision on that, but I want to hear what you think comes after.”

    But they aren’t going to disqualify him. The concern that other states will then say Biden is ineligible for X reason and remove him from the ballot is legitimate. The point about states doing it days before an election are very real and dangerous. Do you then postpone voting until it plays out in court? Potentially for years? What happens if they go ahead with the vote and that candidate isn’t on the ballot and presumably loses because a bunch of people don’t know how to write in a candidate? They’re going to find the most legitimate reason they can to punt this to Congress or a criminal trial before they can properly review applicability of the constitutional provision. It could be unanimous to shut it down forever, and that’s probably for the best since the no votes are going to win anyway. Don’t need a dissenting opinion that can provide any fuel for some R state to base a claim on. 

  8. 21 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

    Gotta just be the record for that specific lake

     

    16 hours ago, thunderlounge said:


    Yes, but a 62lb blue isn’t huge for a blue.

    Looking elsewhere it clarifies that it was the water body record. Guess they just don't get very big in that lake for some reason

  9. 17 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

    Should the vaccinated even care about these dipshits killing themselves off?

    Yes because they take up valuable medical resources. 

     

    And also because vaccines aren’t 100% effective in every person that gets them. And some people have other health conditions that prevent them from being able to take particular vaccines. People in both groups die because of moronic anti-vaxxers. 

  10. 1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

    Reddit is top shelf for porn.  You'll discover kinks you didn't even know you had.  

    Unfortunately, the first thing to be banned with the IPO is going to be all the porn subreddits.

     

    Will it though? I get why that seems logical at a glance, but that’s gotta be a massive portion of the overall usage. Can’t find any recent source, but as of a few years ago it was calculated that about 25% of the subreddits are NSFW. Doesn’t look like there’s any way for the public to determine how much traffic goes through those subreddits though. I’d guess it’s a significantly higher percentage, but I have no data to back that up. Either way, even if it’s only 25%, that would dramatically decrease shareholder value. I certainly wouldn’t want to be on the board of a company when it intentionally removed 25% of its value. Tumblr, Imgur, and probably others have shown this is a devastating decision. 
     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. On 1/5/2024 at 11:40 PM, ClubWhatever said:

    It looks like the seat cover was sucked off the seat next to the hole.   If somebody had been sitting there they would probably be gone, seatbelt or not.

    I believe those are similar to fitted sheets and can be removed for cleaning. The seat belt is attached to the chair frame which appears to be fully intact. At least that’s what I’m going to tell myself. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...