libertarians are conservatives with even worse critical thinking skills.

most conservative arguments fall apart when you ask 3 consecutive questions, but it only takes 1 or 2 questions for the typical libertarian argument

not if you line things up right

how do you know

i hope i don’t end up with the -4000 mAh battery if i buy the phone

what happened to that guys sleeves

if you learn how to solve zeno’s problem in the first book, it may be possible to solve 100% of your problems in the second book

seen and not seen in my ass

🚔🚔🚔

that thing looks like it can fold in so many ways

i’d need another 130k to be taken off the price before i consider using one

oh okay that’s pretty reasonable. i forgot about bacon bits

how does she define “condiment”?

this seems like the only proper way to do anything in C++. it’s a language where there’s 5 ways to do 1 thing and 1 way to do 5 things.

the plastic spatula is the scariest part of this picture

yep, this is a lemmy.ml post alright

and then they had the audacity to put that picture on the cover of the textbooks

without 1 there would be no 2 😔

i think it depends on what you mean by “accurately”.

from the perspective of someone living on the sphere, a geodesic looks like a straight line, in the sense that if you walk along a geodesic you’ll always be facing the “same direction”. (e.g., if you walk across the equator you’ll end up where you started, facing the exact same direction.)

but you’re right that from the perspective of euclidean geometry, (i.e. if you’re looking at the earth from a satellite), then it’s not a straight line.

one other thing to note is that you can make the “perspective of someone living on the sphere” thing into a rigorous argument. it’s possible to use some advanced tricks to cook up a definition of something that’s basically like “what someone living on the sphere thinks the derivative is”. and from the perspective of someone on the sphere, the “derivative” of a geodesic is 0. so in this sense, the geodesics do have “constant slope”. but there is a ton of hand waving here since the details are super complicated and messy.

this definition of the “derivative” that i mentioned is something that turns out to be very important in things like the theory of general relativity, so it’s not entirely just an arbitrary construction. the relevant concepts are “affine connection” and “parallel transport”, and they’re discussed a little bit on the wikipedia page for geodesics.

it’s a bit of a “spirit of the law vs letter of the law” kind of thing.

technically speaking, you can’t have a straight line on a sphere. but, a very important property of straight lines is that they serve as the shortest paths between two points. (i.e., the shortest path between A and B is given by the line from A to B.) while it doesn’t make sense to talk about “straight lines” on a sphere, it does make sense to talk about “shortest paths” on a sphere, and that’s the “spirit of the law” approach.

the “shortest paths” are called geodesics, and on the sphere, these correspond to the largest circles that can be drawn on the surface of the sphere. (e.g., the equator is a geodesic.)

i’m not really sure if the line in question is a geodesic, though

girlboss