Not liking her because she’s transgender vs not liking her because she’s a class traitor.

Me unsure whether to support the fascists or the intellectual property people:

I mean to be fair, do you know how hard it is to get an oil tanker to constructively interfere with itself?

Infinite sunspot theorem moment.

Deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room, isn’t that a lot of protein (and especially meat) for a breakfast?

Like I said, compared to the sheer scale of horror inflicted by these countries’ foreign policy, a few thousand dead protesters is a rounding error. What domestic evil committed by any of these countries compares to this?

This is a case where the “both sides are equal” is true.

Absolutely not. The Iranian regime has a lot of blood on its hands, both at home and abroad, but it doesn’t even come close to the sheer amount of evil exercised by Israel and America. The worst thing the Ayatollah regime has ever done was support the Assad regime during the Syrian Civil War. That’s obviously evil as fuck, but it looks downright cute compared to Israel’s literal genocide and America’s War on Terror (let alone its even worse historical crimes). In this class of absurd evil, killing a few thousand people is literally a rounding error.

Have you ever been told you’re a piece of shit?

A lot of progress has also been made in hybrid/organic solar panels in recent years. The things state of the art stuff can do is frankly nuts.

*Increase? Assuming constant grid line thickness the fewer squares you have the more surface area you get.

I expanded on it a bit more in the other reply chain, but the point is: The US has been an imperialist colonial state waging wars of aggression for basically all of its history; first it went after the native Americans (and Mexicans), then it set its sights on Latin America and now it’s trying to subjugate the whole post-colonial world. This means America has a very long track record doing absolutely evil shit abroad and Americans have a very long track record absolutely failing to stop (in many cases even cheering on) said evil shit. I could list out this evil shit, but any American who paid attention in highschool history should know what I’m talking about, and either way countries don’t occupy continents from shore to shore through the power of love. Point being: Given this long history and without evidence to the contrary, it’s downright folly to expect Americans to do much if anything to hold back their current war of aggression in Iran. Most will support it, most of the rest won’t do anything and the people trying to do something will fail because they’ll find no takers (or due to cowardice).

So you have no response to my argument and can only respond with ad hominem. Noted and fuck you.

Wtf that’s a typo. That should’ve been “250 of US foreign policy.”

There have also been a couple of world wars that the US has assisted in in the past 250 years that I would consider success stories, it wasn’t just Vietnam and Iraq.

How should getting into two particular wars on the other side of the world (the former of which a fight between equally shitty dipshits) convince me that Americans can stop their government from getting into wars on the other side of the world? The fact that you consider US entry into WWI to be a good thing (WWII being an exception, though with reservations) does nothing but prove my point; that was an elites’ war through and through.

if you think there’s been nothing significant achieved by American citizens against the government over the past 250 years.

As I very clearly said in my comment, I’m specifically talking about US foreign policy (aka imperialism), and historically the best Americans have been able to do is make their military leave after bombing everything to the ground. Maybe you have a different idea but I don’t consider Iraq or Vietnam to be success stories for the American public, and again those are the very best Americans have been able to do.

There are millions of Americans trying to organize against this shit.

To no effect if the last checks notes 250 years or US foreign policy are any indication.

It is, but conceptually it’s a lot weirder than the Fourier transform, whose idea at least is very straightforward. I mean, when doing Laplace transforms you do have to assume that int(e^tdt){0}{∞}=-1. I’d definitely rather use the Laplace transform, but you couldn’t pay me to explain how that shit actually works to an undergrad student.

Added an explanation comment. Should’ve probably done that sooner.

Explanation: Top left is a Taylor series, which expresses an infinitely differentiable function as an infinite polynomial. Center left is a Fourier transform, which extracts from periodic function into the frequencies of the sines and cosines composing it. Bottom left is the Laplace transform, which does the same but for all exponentials (sines and cosines are actually exponentials, long story). It seems simpler than the Fourier transform, until you realize that the s is a complex number. In all of these the idea is to break down a function into its component parts, whether as powers of x, sines and cosines or complex exponentials.

Edit: I’ll try to explain if something is unclear, but… uh… better not get your hopes up.

If there is any chance of reform it would have to still appeal to all parties.

There’s nothing such as change that appeals to all parties; that is not how that works. Change, good or bad, is forced by one segment of society over another, doubly so when it’s against the interests of the ultra-rich. Don’t compromise in advance.

Okay here’s the thing: Calling policies that contribute to monopolies anti-capitalist makes no sense, because by this standard capitalism is anti-capitalist. It’s not like monopolies appear out of thin air; concentration of wealth into monopolies or oligopolies is the only possible equilibrium state under capitalism, so deflecting the effects of these monopolies as “anti-capitalist” is an appeal to fiction.