hydrospanner

But your entire last paragraph, on the practicality and realism spectrum, ranks just a bit lower than "worthless, idle wishful thinking".

It's no more or less serious than if you'd said we should all just join together in song and force aliens to show up to fix all our problems.

It's not organized enough.

And if any gun-grabbers think the cops and ICE and politicians are fascist enough as-is, imagine how they would be acting if they could kick down doors with full impunity and zero fear. Yeah, the local cops could get a squad of 20 and take this house apart. But somebody's getting hurt. I guarantee it.

And there's the real case for private ownership.

If you have the choice of being disappeared and killed...or being disappeared and killed while taking a few of them with you, definitely choose the latter.

It won't help you, but if you do it, your neighbor does it, and the next 10, 20...50 people do it, eventually two things are going to happen: if it's local forces, they're gonna start needing help, and if it's not local, it forces those powers into a more difficult decision of having to either get more overt with their fascism or backing off. It's not ideal but that's pretty much the options you have.

If they want to do all the shitty fascist things, don't let them do it easily and for free. The higher ups might not care, but that local cop in the red hat might start to think twice when "his" government keeps asking him to haul away people, and each time, another of his friends goes down. If not from a place of shifting world view, then maybe from self preservation.

I mean, that's a pretty hard shift in the defense of your assertion.

You lead off strong with "I think it's XYZ", with no support, then when that's challenged, you're restating it in the framework of "you need to prove it's not XYZ".

Might as well have said the purge is because these guys liked raspberry donuts and Xi hates that flavor. Good luck proving that negative.

A bag of onions and a jar of minced garlic punch above their price tag for pasta enhancement as well.

I like to saute the onion (diced) until golden and translucent, then add a scoop of the minced garlic, then just as it starts to brown, dump in the sauce, Italian seasoning, and stir at a very low simmer while the noodles cook.

Add some pasta water to the sauce before you strain so it sticks to the noodles better.

I'm glad it's working out for you, but fuck if I'm about to pay some self appointment group to tell me what kind of fence or shed is unacceptable for me to own on my own property.

If I want to plop down a shopping container on my own front lawn, anyone who doesn't like it can kick rocks.

Even longer than that.

But gas means money, so fuck anyone and everything else that might get in the way.

I mean, shit, at least lionize some blinkered fanatic like Stonewall Jackson.

Jackson was a 19th century Christian jihadist.

On the other hand... instead of Lee or Jackson, James Longstreet is right there.

You're mostly right with the depth of field being the big difference but the image being darker is not a function of aperture (f-stop) directly, but rather overall exposure. At the same ISO setting, two identical shots in the same lighting would be the same brightness with truly equal exposure: the reduction in aperture (increasing to m the f-stop number to a higher value) would be compensated for with an equivalent decrease in shutter speed (in simple terms, constricting the hole lets in less light, so we leave the hole open longer to let in the same amount as before).

In the example, if the scene is darker it's because the exposure changed, not just because of the aperture.

Additionally, the number is shown as a fraction because it is a fraction. The "f" in the value (f/2.8) is a variable that stands for "focal length", that being the focal length of the lens being used. So, for example, a 50mm lens set to f/2 would have its aperture set to a 25mm diameter. (50/2)

The reason the numbers are strange numbers and non-linear in scale is because they correspond to aperture diameters that let in either double or half the amount of light from the stop next to them. So adjusting from f/2 to f/2.8 cuts the amount of light in half (I think this is basically doubling or halving the area of the circle of the aperture).

This is why a one stop change at lower values (bigger openings) has a much smaller numeric shift than a one stop change at higher values: adding or subtracting diameter of a larger circle adds or subtracts much more area than the same diameter change to a smaller circle. That's why one stop goes only from f/2 to f/2.8 on the wide open end, but on the closed down end, one stop goes from f/11 to f/16.

Finding new and different applications for the Musk RTO technology!

I can't think of any metals or anything that there would be enough of in river water to hurt you

We're talking about rivers like the one in Cleveland that they caught on fire?

Twice?!

IDK what's in that but I'll leave my cup for you haha

The Rock, Sean Connery