You forgot about the strain of person that would want to get pH banned claiming it's a gub'ment mind control agent.
remotelove
joined 2 years ago
The title of the article is referring to "chemtrails" as false. (You are blocked now too. So no point in responding.)
The point was not about if it was happening or not. It's about how these examples are used as fodder to keep the conspiracies flowing about chemtrails.
If you mix just the right amount of conspiracy with a little bit of fact, you get to keep all the votes from the crazies. It's super easy to use big words like "geoengineering" and twist them to imply that hormones are mixed with jet fuel.
"Fesi testified on the Senate floor April 28 during debate over his bill that he believes “certain agencies within the federal government are doing cloud seeding and geoengineering.” In an interview Friday, the senator was asked what evidence he had to support his claims.
“Look up in our sky,” Fesi answered.
In an interview, Fesi later said he sees “just tons and tons of cloud seeding” above his backyard and described it as “all of the stripes across the skies.”
https://lailluminator.com/2025/05/19/weather-modification-bills/
These bills are fueled by conspiracy theories and idiocy.
Lol, no. Most of maga can't even spell Europe, so all of those things you list, while true, are way beyond their comprehension.
The politicians just point at European countries and say they stupid because they talk funny and they are stealing from you. (It doesn't matter if that is true or not, it's just "someone else to blame" for made up problems.)
True random is almost impossible for computers to generate. The biggest issue is that the algorithms are known and they are generally seeded with numbers that aren't quite random.
Computers can generate numbers that are close to random, but will still have enough data to reverse engineer.
True random, or the closest we have, is atmospheric noise or tracking points from radioactive decay.
It's ok to shit in someone else's, just not yours.
I'll walk through it again, as you are probably right, and I can find the mistake.
1800g is the estimate weight of 450~~g~~ml silver powder.
The total weight is 1464g.
There is 250ml (g) of water at the top of the container, which we subtract from the total weight, leaving 1214g of a silver/water slurry.
1800g should be the weight
1214g is the weight.
(Here is the mistake) The weight difference is 516g, which is the weight of the missing silver in the slurry, not the weight of the water in the slurry.
So, I would need to convert 516g to an approximate volume of silver powder. Since we have volume, we can now compute the weight of the water in the slurry.
Damnit. I edited with that correction, but deleted the edit, cause who the fuck knows why. Was kind of in a rush at the time, and didn't think I would have been silly enough to miss the 250g.
Good cach and yeah, I felt it.
250ml solution (mostly water on top) = 250g
700g (if 700ml water) - 250g = 450ml silver slurry
450ml silver powder weight (dry) = 1800g
1464g (total) - 250g (excess water) = 1214g
450ml slurry = 1214g slurry
1800g (dry silver) - 1214g (silver slurry) = 516g (516ml water in slurry)
1464g (total) - 516g (water) = 948g silver powder.
I always miss something obviously stupid when doing math in public. However, it sounds suspiciously close to a 1kg starting weight of silver though.
Nah, it was kind of a dumb question actually. The volume isn't going to change much unless you melt it down. Thanks though!
Sugar is what now? That's a bold claim without specificity.