Saying something is false and then asking for citations doesn't seem that helpful to me.
To support your argument, take the following example:
Lets take some water at 273.15 Kelvin and add 1 Kelvin of energy to it. The water is now at 274.15 Kelvin. The difference is of 1 Kelvin.
If we had the same amount of water at 0 degrees Celsius and added 1 Celsius of energy, the water would now be at 1 Celcius.
Converting these values leave us with 273.15 Kelvin and 274.15 Kelvin respectively.
You can repeat this experiment (ignoring latent heat) for any value of Kelvin or Celsius, therefore Kevlin and Celsius are interchangeable in reference to temperature comparasion.
I did something like this: a 64x64 (4K) display of GoL (among other things) using addressable pixels. Alas, I only took one video when the display was working and it wasn't fully cleaned up: https://photos.app.goo.gl/WUmVgBVVi6rXDqSB7
Tim Apple is like Larry Ellison; don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing him. Simply think of him as a robot that is designed to make apple more profitable. Greasing the Trump skids helps with that.
That quote was not only meant as a coy way to brush off Larry Ellison's business gusto. It was a total condemnation of his sociopathy and immoral behavior. Larry Ellison was not a ceiling fan, shaking his hand did not bruise you. He rips it from the bone.
You sound awfully confident about this, given we have no direct evidence for most of your claims. I would find your writing more convincing if you didn't make absolute statements.
CO, CO2, carbonate salts like Na2CO3, or CaCO3, and cyanides like HCN, NaCN, and KCN are usually considered inorganic compounds instead of organic compounds, despite containing carbons. But the vast majority of carbon-containing compounds are considered organic, and there are no organic compounds that don't contain carbon.
> there are no organic compounds that don't contain carbon
It's very much nitpicking and an edge case but now you've got me wondering if some silicone hydrocarbon analogs might not qualify. Noting that we have plausible theories about the feasibility of silicone based life.
I mean, I don't think diamonds are considered "organic"; same for graphite. But that's where the term "organic" itself starts to break down as a category.
Wikipedia: "Organic chemistry is a subdiscipline within chemistry involving the scientific study of the structure, properties, and reactions of organic compounds and organic materials (i.e. matter in its various forms that contain carbon atoms)."
It doesn't break down at all. Diamonds are organic structures, in the classical definition of that term. (Assuming they weren't treated with insecticides in the mine... /s)
I don't think wikipedia is the best reference here, and I think you're also misinterpreting them; not all carbon-containing substances (including diamond) are considered organic. There is no true classical definition of the term- it's actually a fairly nebulous concept. Ultimately you're just arguing about definitions which is not particularly interesting.
Yes! Not sure why you're asking- things don't have to be created by biological processes to be organic (this concept is totally unrelated to "organic" in the supermarket).
"Available to userspace" is a much different thing than "available to every website that wants it, even in private mode".
I too was a little surprised by this. My browser (Vivladi) makes a big deal about how privacy-conscious they are, but apparently browser fingerprinting is not on their radar.
If you believe otherwise, please provide some citations to your beliefs so we can understand what you are trying to say.
reply