She says that like collapsing the government wasn’t her goal all along.

I’m not sure I’m accurately visualizing exactly what you’re describing, but I know from experience working with a two-color offset press that the results are quite different if you print two colors in two passes vs one pass (in which the inks are combined on a “blanket” where they effectively mix together before being transferred to the paper all at once).

In the first case, the result is exactly what you’d expect from a subtractive color model; but in the latter case, the mixed ink that ends up on the paper is no darker than the component inks. The hue is similar whether overprinted or mixed, but the saturation is reduced in the mixed example.

Big tech CEOs aren’t creating the surveillance state, they’re just profiting off the demand for it.

Also—politicians and cultural figures generally reflect the values of the groups they come from, but CEOs of all backgrounds just reflect the values of capitalism.

In theory mixing a bunch of those 3 colors together, you can eventually get down to black, in practice your pigments aren’t perfect

This is a common misconception, but it has nothing to do with imperfections in the pigments. The real issue is that you don’t want each of your primaries to block a full third of the visible spectrum—you want each to block a narrow band of frequencies that overlaps as little as possible with the sensitivity curves of the other cone cells in your eyes, in order to produce fully-saturated colors. The tradeoff is that intermediate frequencies aren’t blocked by any of the primaries, which is why we need to add black.

Other comments are discussing additive vs subtractive colors, but that’s not accurate if you’re talking about mixing paints. Subtractive printing (CMYK) works by overprinting transparent inks, where each ink removes a different part of the spectrum. But mixed paints differ in two critical ways:

• Paints are opaque, not transparent. Unlike subtractive inks, paint doesn’t invariably darken the color it’s painted over—instead it completely or partially replaces the underlying color.
• Subtractive inks are applied to the substrate one at a time—they’re not pre-mixed and applied in one pass. If you mix paints before appying them, you get more of an averaging than subtraction or addition (so mixing primary colors gets you a medium brownish-gray instead of black or white).

probabilitywaves have to exist IN something, therefore there IS a probability-field

Probability amplitudes are directly derived (via the Born rule) from wave functions in quantum fields (electron field, proton field, etc.) That’s the medium probability propagates through—not a separate probability field.

The phases of matter (solid, liquid, and gas) are derived from the relative strengths of kinetic energy vs various types of electromagnetic interactions, on a much larger scale.

Time and information are derived from coarse-graining microstates into macrostates on a larger scale yet. Those are all pretty distinct processes.

The primary outcome was dementia, which was identified via death records and physician diagnoses.

If caffeine has enough of an effect to change a diagnosis or death record, that seems worth reporting in any case.

And while it might be worthwhile to see if other stimulants have a similar effect, does it affect these results one way or the other?

You express your like or dislike toward the sentiment expressed by the post, not the thing(s) mentioned in the post.

As an example, imagine a post with a title like “AI is awful” (I’m sure many here has seen posts like that). A Friendica user could reasonably agree with the post and thus “Dislike” it. As in, they also find AI awful and they dislike AI, so they dislike the post, to show their disapproval of AI.

I don’t believe dislikes are meant to function like that on any platform.

I’m mostly familiar with late Roman sources, which aren’t really representative of classical Greece.

I don’t think there’s anything along those lines in Plato (and therefore Socrates) in any case, though, because the speakers in his dialogues are usually trying to explain their reasoning clearly rather than showing off their literary prowess or making cultural commentary. And as for Homer (and Hesiod, and playwrights dealing with mythological subjects), I don’t think it was common to portray mythological figures insulting each other by implying parallels to other myths, but I could be wrong. The places I’d expect to see it, if anywhere, would be things like political orations and comic plays, but I’m not familiar enough with classical Greek sources to think of any examples.

So the Japanese empire was just an attempt to fit the rest of the solar system on their flag?

The general impression I’ve gotten (mostly from late Roman sources) is that you’d draw on names from ancient historical or mythological references to imply a parallel to your current opponents—but the reference needed to be relevant to the current context; there wasn’t a generic label that was always used for each group.

Part of the object was to show off the writer’s literary knowledge, though, so it was probably restricted to the literate class.

By Roman times it was a neutral word for all non-Romans (including respected allies), and not a slur per se.

Cut the slices at a slight angle so they tilt over if they roll.

When the potential long-term impact of the events keeps increasing, but the actual long-term impact keeps decreasing.

Maybe people who talk to themselves are just songwriters who haven’t figured out a melody yet.

Do identical twins not count?

Does this solve Eigen’s paradox?

Not consistently—the more usual pattern is to use þ at the beginning of words and ð internally, even if the internal sound is voiceless.

In both languages, the two sounds are usually allophones and are perceived as the same sound influenced by context—the way the “th” sound in “breath” and “breathe” are perceived as the same consonant, just influenced by the preceding vowel. (If we wrote “breþ” and ‘breeð”, the different letters would hide the fact that we hear them as the same sound.)

Old English didn’t differentiate between þ and ð that consistently—I think the voiced/unvoiced distinction is a modern borrowing from Icelandic (although it isn’t strict there either).

Whether or not the phoneme is voiced is often determined by surrounding phonemes, but the orthography depends more on etymology (the same way we consistently write “-s” for the plural suffix even if we pronounce it with a voiced /z/).