I want to live in high tech but ethical peace and comfort

Janeway: “Hold my beer”

I’m not sure actually. I know it’s usually found with methane and in massive quantities. Maybe just sealed in by rock and time?

The problem is that helium is notoriously hard to contain. It’s transported and stored super-cooled, but it still gases off, and to release pressure they just have to release it into the atmosphere. It effectively has a shelf life and so it has to be constantly replenished.

It’s like calling all gas vehicles SUVs.

Okay, but a quote like: “Usually, when it’s a EV (with no human driver behind the wheel)” makes it seem like the poster thinks that being an electric vehicle is a prerequisite to being driverless. Also, it seems like the poster thinks that “EV” almost implies “driverless”.

Why does it matter if it’s an EV?

Username checks out

Whatever happened to that terrible excuse for a human being?

Watch your cornhole, bud.

I haven’t seen it listed here in a quick scan, so:

Office Space

Thomas Hayden Church?

I don’t fully understand. Can you give a concrete example? Like you meet someone who seems like a woman to you, they say they’re a man, and you’re like, “no, no, you’re a woman, I reject your self identification of being a man”?

Dumbest thing I’ve read all day, thanks.

I stopped my see-food diet and lost weight.

Predictions are hard especially about the future.

Wise words. ;-)

No, it’s worse than that, I think.

He wanted the student to be hired by a convicted sex trafficker. He says he knew Epstein would want to know more about her physical traits, so he preemptively proffered the info to “the boss”. He’s saying that as his defense. He seriously doesn’t even get how disgusting that sounds.

Has the accuracy of the snapshots actually changed based on this edit? After all, if it’s factual information being presented…

Yes! Quite literally, yes. They’re supposed to be an archive of what is on other sites. It doesn’t matter if the original site was, right, wrong, complete, incomplete, accurate, inaccurate, factual, unfactual, etc. If they change things, they’re editorializing and are no longer an archive, they’re new content - which is not the purpose people use them for.

I do agree that it raises the issue of what other modifications there may be,

That’s literally the point. It doesn’t matter how much you “understand the reasoning” (though you also think it’s childish and don’t agree with the actions). You can use it if you want to, no one is stopping you. The point is Wikipedia can’t trust it as a source of archived data and has every right to ban it.

That’s inappropriate, childish, and unprofessional. It makes them untrustworthy for citations. There are better ways of handling it.

If altering snapshots for a grudge isn’t your definition of “behaving poorly” for a site archiving the state of the Internet, then you must not think they have to be an accurate source of information. If they’re not an accurate source of information, then Wikipedia has no obligation to allow them to be used in citations, and they should remove such citations.

It sounds like archive.today is behaving poorly. As far as I know, Wikipedia isn’t exactly “big money”. If you know different on either front, can you please explain. Otherwise your comments are meaningless.

Under Ice Ice Pressure Baby