That’s not fair. I’m still kinda convinced Brandon Sanderson has clones, or has made a compact with the devil or something. How can someone write so much and not be in the throws of of some kind of manic breakdown? It’s just not fair to the other fantasy writers.

No, it’s not socially acceptable. Yes, I wish it were.

Like, does this mean you are afraid of other people you don’t know judging you, or that you or your friends find it socially unacceptable?

Either way that seems to be more of an individual problem rather than a social one. I am physically affectionate with my friends and have never been confronted about it by a member of the public , not that I would really care if I were. People be dumb, I’m not going to let someone else’s projected homophobia dictate my friendship.

I would still say that “the soap attaches the oil to water” isn’t quite right. Per your statement, the soap attaches to both oil and water on opposite sides of the molecule, so the oil isn’t really attached to the water - at least not directly. That was the thing I was trying to articulate.

Yeah, it’s open to interpretation as we aren’t utilizing strict scientific terminology. The reason why i preface it that way is that technically emulsifiers are still oils/fats themselves, they’ve just undergone a chemical reaction that alters their polarity.

Also, when you are trying to create a proper emulsification the majority of the time you add you emulsifiers to the oils/fats first to create a partial emulsification, and then you add your water and energy to finish it off.

But I understand your reasoning, even the best emulsification is still technically an aided dispersion and will lose its homogenisation over time.

The soap doesn’t work by attaching oil to water, the soap attaches to the water and then the soap is carried away by the water. Oil doesn’t dissolve in water, but oil dissolves in soap and soap dissolves in water.

I’m sorry, but that is incorrect. Soap is created as a reaction between fat and an alkaline reagent, often sodium hydroxide. This chemical reaction creates bi-polar molecules, with one side remaining hydrophobic allowing it to bond to other fats, and one side that is hydrophilic and will bond to water.

Oil by itself does not dissolve in soap, it creates a partial emulsification. That partial emulsification will relatively quickly separate back to oil and soap given time, adding water and energy will create a complete emulsion which will hold the water oil and fat together for much longer.

Due to a project at my company, I unfortunately know entirely more about emulsification than I would like.

Yeah, still not great. Even with a bunch of soap you’re still going to have some grease that doesn’t get emulsified with the soap and water.

The way soap works is by attaching molecules of oil to water, but it requires a lot of agitation/energy for a complete emulsion that won’t quickly break down to its constituent parts again.

If you’re in a situation where you have to pour grease down your pipe, continue your soap method, but let the hot water run for a min or two before, during, and after you pour the grease. The hotter the better.

Where exactly in Europe are communist winning elections?

They get called in for jury duty just like anyone else, but I doubt many actually get selected for the jury. The last time I had to do jury duty one of the people in the jury pool was a car dealer owner that did a bunch of local commercials and he was one of the first peeps to get canned.

Generally you want your jury to be impartial and bland. Everyone in the jury should be paying attention not the case, not their fellow jury members.

That’s fair, though it doesn’t seem to bother the little critters like rabbits or racoons for some reason. But yeah, it’ll def make the deer scamper off.

As an avid backpacker, I’m not stoked about the plan to reintroduce brown bears to my state.

I do a lot of hiking as well, and yes brown bears are definitely more of a pucker your b-hole scenario. But for the most part as long as you don’t sneak up on one accidentally or accidentally get between the bear and the cubs, they’re fairly harmless. Ya just gotta have something that makes some noise when you’re hiking, I have buddies that just strap a cow bell on their packs.

It would still be pretty rare for one to outright attack a full grown person, they are generally aware that peeps be dangerous.

It’s kinda why I never got the whole would you rather thing. As a fairly big dude, I’d much prefer the bear over a man or a woman. The bear is more than likely just going to scamper off. Even decent people in bad situations are very dangerous creatures, and more than likely, I’m just going to have to take care of a complete stranger in the woods.

I wasn’t really disputing that he applied it to nature, just giving my two cents of why I don’t think that application is really appropriate.

It’s kinda an apple to oranges comparison. For example, we wouldn’t be excited about conducting mutual aid with a fascist organization. We understand that fascist would be more than happy to take part, and eventually use that relationship to destroy us.

Nature in comparison is full of relationships that start as mutually beneficial and then become parasitic after a slight change in ecology. The examples of mutual aid in nature are also likely products of survivorship bias, the organisms that find harmony in mutual beneficial relationships are the product of filling the gaps left behind of other mutually beneficial relationships failling.

To condense my rambling… We can find examples of mutually beneficial relationships/actions in both nature and human society. Technically all forms of commerce is a form of mutual beneficiary action, but not all mutually beneficial actions are mutual aid. Mutual aid requires intent to organize or intent to diminish the dependency of the current organizational hierarchy.

I think the difference would be that the concept of mutual aid is meant to build something further than just surviving within a niche of mutual benefits. It’s a means of political organization, not a means of simple existence.

I think it’s kinda a semantic dispute. Rules are mostly a human construct, utilized to organize a hierarchy of understanding of the natural world and how we interact with it as social groups.

So, I’m not really sure if an idea like mutual aid can be used to accurately describe copacetic relationships outside the human experience. Mostly because when nature engages in mutually beneficial relationships, there isn’t a goal of organization, nor is there any understanding of hierarchy.

These types of relationships could better be described by someone like Bookchin, as a network of natural codependent relationships is more in the realm of ecology than it is a political science.

This is incredibly naive. We are talking about a company that was literally too lazy to check if all the bolts were in place and secured in an airplane, risking a fatal incident with hundreds of people killed. And that is after two planes already force crashed killing everyone on board, because of a faulty IT system that was not properly checked.

Why do you think an airplane company is so confident that they can ignore public safety in lieu of profits? It’s because they know the US Government is just going to give them a slap on the wrist. They effectively murdered those passengers, where’s the charges?

Boeing has proven plenty, that they have a full disregard for human lifes, if they think they can get away with it. So assassinating whistleblowers and using their influential friends to cover it up as opposed to uncertain and lengthy court battles requiring millions to be spent on it, is absolutely in character.

Corporations already have millions of dollars set aside for legal suits, it’s the price of doing business. They don’t care if court cases go on for long periods, they know they can remain solvent longer than their former employees.

Also, killing a person doesn’t mean the court cases just stop, they’ve already given their testimony. Furthermore, hiring someone to kill someone isn’t getting rid of evidence, it’s just creating a new witness to your criminality. You think anyone working as a hired murderer is going to shy away from blackmail, or not use you as a bargaining chip if they ever get into legal trouble?

it will cause a shit ton of litigation towards Boeing. It was by far the obviously cheaper choice to just do proper QA.

dO yOu HaVe a SoUrCe 4 ThAt?

Corporations do liability and cost-benifit analysis all the time, and it’s often a lot cheaper to deal with class action law suits than it is to do proper QA or Recalls, just look at the ford pinto.

I think you overestimate the the effectiveness of courts to bring up punitive damages on multi billion dollar corporations.

Lol, no attempt to comprehend the argument?

It’s silly that people are so adamant that sourced materials make up the entirety of any debate. Especially considering that the vast majority of people are terrible at actually comprehending what those sources are trying to say, and if they were created by authors with inherent biases.

We live in a world with a glut of “scientific papers” created by corporations, think tanks, and desperate grad students.

But since you insist…

Here

Not explicitly about hitmen, but it is about corporate murder and how the judicial system evolved to protect them. People still get killed by their employees all the time, now it’s just mostly unsafe working conditions. What is the point of utilizing a hitman when you have lawyers on retainer who can easily mitigate the problem legally?

A whistleblower is the type of person to refuse such an NDA, regardless of buy-off price. They would understand that if Boeing is willing to pay them 10 million or whatever, that the information they have, should they release it, prevent over 10 million dollars worth of damages to the public.

Maybe, but 10 million dollars is nothing to Boeing, and an awful lot for even an ethically driven person. Especially if they’ve been laid off and are in active lawsuits against a multi billion dollar corporation.

They can afford to stall as long as legally allowed, and the legal system is built to levy the scale in their favor. It’s basically impossible for a person in this type of suit to have a normal life, and the corporations know that and try to exploit it as much as they can.

I just don’t see someone like that committing suicide in a hotel parking lot out of state the day (two days?) before they are supposed to testify. That would go against everything they were doing up until that point.

Suicide isn’t timely, nor is it a logic based decision. Unfortunately it’s fairly common for people to kill themselves at times people (especially their loved ones) would not initially expect.

Do you have a source for that? I doubt there’s graph of “workers murdered by companies, by country” or “murders, pre- vs post- whistleblowing” so it sounds like that might be at best an educational guess, or at worst pro-US bias.

There’s no material reason to kill people who are going to testify against you anymore. Corporations basically started to capture the judicial system in the late 60’ and for the most part succeeded in their goals by the late 80s.

Tort law has been effectively neutered, leaving the only real legal recourse being ineffective , long drawn out class action lawsuits. There is a reason the last person killed on that Wikipedia article was when unions started dying off.

Many of these whistle-blowers are older experienced engineers who will be biased towards a higher death rate.

This, plus being highly involved in any court case is extremely stressful, which can take a toll on your mental and physical health.

Which is why I’m still kinda leaning towards an actual suicide with the first case. Being stressed, tired, having your life dictated around court schedules while you sleep in hotel rooms… I could see that wearing someone down after a while.

I just don’t think it makes real sense for a company to hire an actual hitman to operate in the US. Corporate murders happen, but usually overseas, and usually not when they’ve already testified.

Not saying it isn’t a possibility, I just think it’d be cheaper to pay the guy off and have him sign an NDA.

I think that kinda depends on how you view morals and ethics. One could claim that a profession doesn’t define your morality…but I doubt many say that about the Nazi or Isis.

Now that’s a bit hyperbolic, but it does lend weight to the framework of the argument. Can an individual be “good” and simultaneously be supporting a system or group that is “bad”.

Now you can wholly reject the notion that the police are bastards, but that would just be a different debate, and likely a futile one. But, it would still be a stronger argument than your original.

moonlights as both an EMT and a firefighter when she’s not a cop.

If my day job is working as a corrupt politician, but I moonlight at a homeless shelter…does that cancel each other out? If a person wanted for murder stops a mugging, does he get a get out of jail free card?

She’s normally a really great person

I don’t doubt she’s a great person to you and people she cares about, but we’re not really talking about personal relationships.

Sounds like your typical engineer. I passed fluid dynamics, I deserve to look at the big ball of plasma.

My eyes haven’t hurt this bad since studying for differential equations theory… Have I told you I’m an engineer?