queermunist she/her

Chelsea* Manning

But, yeah, most people just do not care if they are spied on because they don’t think it will be used for anything besides advertising. Trump is going to wake a lot of people up to the immense power we’ve handed over to our tech overlords.

You could dab it with a little paint or glue or something.

It helps when you reframe math as a puzzle, because then it becomes a game. It’s not interesting unless you make it interesting.

“New Math” kind of tries to do this, although then you run into the problem of parents being unable to help their kids with homework.

That makes sense, but it’s still strange because it means in the case of a fire the entire building has to be treated the same anyway because there is something in the building that reacts with water even if its separate.

I guess it is helpful to indicate that there are multiple substances that have different reaction profiles, but it still seems strange to me.

The reason for listing them separately is because each individual chemical has its own ratings. You can’t simply take the highest of each and combine them into a single sign. For instance, in this case one chemical isn’t flammable but is explosive when heated. The other chemical is flammable but not explosive. So if you see a chemical on fire, you know it’s the second chemical and isn’t explosive. But if you see something that isn’t burning in a room full of fire, you know it’s a potential powder keg waiting to explode.

Okay, so the two signs on the building have a weird combination.

The sign on the left indicates something that isn’t flammable, but reacts with water. The sign on the right indicates something that is flammable, but there’s no risk of reacting to water. If the building caught fire then a first responder on the scene has to read both signs at the same time. They can’t spray the building with water because the non-flammable substance would react with the water.

So why aren’t the signs combined? They have to be treated the same anyway.

Sure, but I don’t think the building should have two labels. I think it should have one label that reflects a warning for everything in the building.

Imagine you have a crate with two different chemicals. The chemicals are in different bottles so they aren’t mixed, and each bottle has its own label.

Should the crate have two unidentified labels like this, or one? There’s no indication what those labels refer to on the building.

But the building, as a whole, pesents the combined risk of both chemicals.

But it’s just slapped on the side of the building with no indication of which chemicals the labels are for, I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to be done. It’d be like mixing two chemicals into a bottle and then putting two labels on it.

I think there should just be one label that combines the warning levels of both i.e. 3-2-2-W

As others have said, these are NFPA signs.

What I want to know is why there are two different ones. What the hell does that mean?

Unfortunately, many men think hugging or touching each other is effeminate and gay.

Real men definitely whine and blame other people, millions of them are doing it every day.

Well, no, my position is that gods could be real but none of them are worth worshiping.

Then, additionally, if there’s some kind of omnipotent and omniscient Creator then it’s evil and I hate it.

Well the US should stop destroying other countries if they didn’t want people to flee those countries.

That premise is the premise of the christian, islamic, jewish, and all other self appointed omnipotent creating entities.

Well, yeah, those are the gods I hate. I used the term “almighty” as a shorthand for “god that created literally everything.” They created everything including non-physical concepts like good and evil. You’re basically just describing a Big Bang with a personality, which isn’t really in the category of gods I hate. That god just made cool stars and rocks and stuff, it didn’t really make everything. Rather, the rocks spontaneously came to life and started suffering without input.

Biology, genetics and environmental causes.

And… who made those?

I guess… physics, primordially?

And who made that!?

We’re owed nothing for existing.

We are, actually. We didn’t ask to exist. It was forced onto us by a cruel god that thought it would be neat to make humans.

If we think back to the dumpster baby, god created a child and threw them in a dumpster. For fun. It doesn’t get to wash its hands and say “I don’t owe them anything, it’s up to them to survive.” It’s still responsible for creation and it is derelict in its duty.

Who is responsible for birth defects? For natural disaster? For sickness? These things aren’t choices and we aren’t responsible for them, they happen because god created a cruel world for us to suffer and die in. God created the dumpster and threw us in.

I think you misunderstood - God is the one throwing the baby in a dumpster.

Imagine you intentionally become pregnant, give birth to a child, and then throw them in a dumpster. That’s the god you described.

Except multiply that by billions of lives.

I think more broadly you could say I’m anti-demiurge, I guess I don’t particularly hate the other gods but they’re just jumped up elementals/spirits. Like, whatever, some guy demands to be worshipped in exchange for boons or to bestow curses or whatever. I think he’s an asshole for lording his cool lightning powers over us, but I don’t think he needs to be destroyed for it per se.

Antitheist.

If there is some kind of almighty God that created and rules everything then it must be the most evil being to ever exist and we must destroy it. It created evil, it created suffering, it created loss, it created death, and for what? Fun?