Devial

joined 1 week ago
[–] Devial@lemmy.world 32 points 2 hours ago

Classic republican. Doesn't give a shit about a problem, until they're personally affected by it.

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago

You cannot possibly be serious.

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

The burden of proof is on the person asserting a claim, it's not everyone elses job to chase you for proof on the claims you make, it's your job to provide that proof unprompted

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

If nothing else you can be damn fucking sure they won't even attempt to fulfil wishes that constitute straight up crimes (such as exposing yourself to a minor).

As for everything else, they probably don't have any super specific rules beyond that, what tthey likely have some kind of genericly vague, vibes based, catch all term that "wishes have to be in good faith and good taste"

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

Nothing, Merz is just a massive piece of shit and seemingly fully immune to any level of shame.

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Even if he weren't lying, it would still be negligent homicide. If you point a gun at someone, you are responsible if they get injured or killed. Doesn't matter if you pulled the trigger, mishandled the gun or a magic fairy pixie materialised and pulled the trigger for you.

The mere fact that you pointed a loaded gun at another person already makes you responsible per se in my book.

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

As much of a fan as I am of gun control, expecting gun owners to have a safe that is literally, physically impossible to break into is wildly unreasonable

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago (17 children)

Imo, if it was your gun, unless it was literally stolen from a locked gun safe, anyone who dies by it is automatically your fault.

Doesn't really matter what the circumstances were. If anyone is even in a position to be injured or killed by your weapon, it usually means you acted negligently in either handling or storing the weapon.

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

In this case it isn't about improving heat transfer through the bottom of the pan, it's about improving heat transfer across the bottom of the pan.

The heat will travel through the pan more slowly because of the added material, but due to coppers extremely high heat conductivity, the copper base will heat very evenly, even if the heat source is unevenly applied, and therefore evenly transfer that heat through the steel layer.

[–] Devial@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Yes it would. Adding material generally makes thermal conductivity worse. There is no material with negative thermal resistance, so adding more will always increase thermal resistance by at least a bit.

The only exception is 3D geometries, where an increase in surface area due to the extra material can outweigh the effect of the added material, and lead to a net increase in thermal transfer.

This can lead to a paradoxical effect, where ADDING insulation around a pipe leads to HIGHER transfer than with less insulation material, because the added material increases the exterior diameter, and therefore surface area.

(Heatsinks are also a good example. It is more material than just the component by itself, but increases surface area by such a massive amount that it more than outweighs the added material)