Btw just a funny thing, it seems that Slovakia (my country) is actually producing one of the top baby carriers in the world.

Baby carrying is quite popular and people are quite knowledgeable re refining here (eg no front facing carrying, no kangaroo carriers, etc)

Check out this brand: https://www.sestrice.com/en/

Yeah. Headline caught my attention and I was expecting that the content would follow, but there was none.

My intent is not to comment on your skill, but to rather warn you of the discipline itself. It seems you feel you’re gaining some profound knowledge by this pondering—I am afraid though this is just illusion—and a dangerous one. Just wanted to warn you of that.

I am afraid that you are just cobbling words together. Which is what happens to most philosophers.

The problem is that you are using poorly defined worlds such as empty, intrinsic, change, interdependend, etc. These words have meanings that depends on the context they are used in—they are not well defined—used without further clarification they just point towards some cluster of terms.

And this is how the word soup is cooked.

I agree. I was not precise in my statement—what I wanted to say was that if for some reason they are trying to use it in place of picture, as a decoration (which I can’t really see why), then this would be the approach. Still, I think using ligature for the word Google is the right approach.

I don’t see this as anyhow reasonable still. This eg will break all the screen readers as well. If you really want to do this, use specialized font and a single unprintable Unicode character instead. Like font awesome does.

Well, using ligature to display ‘Google’ with slanted ‘e’ would be just fine. But why in the heavens would someone make a completely different set of characters “googlelogoligature” draw as “Google”? That’s just stupid.

It’s very simple. We have the following assumptions (axioms):

1. for any two states, you prefer one over the other, or, you are indifferent, we will say A > B to mark A is preferred over B, A~B to say that you are indifferent, and A ≥ B to say you are either preferring A or you are indifferent.
2. if A ≥ B and B ≥ C, then A ≥ C, and at the same time A ~ C iff both A ~ B and B ~ C.
3. ~ is equivalency relation (behaves like =)

The conclusion of above assumptions is no cycles. Now, each of them seems as a reasonable assumption. Sure, we can choose different set of axioms, but why? What are we trying to model?

I wonder if this lurch happens at the two meter mark in countries that use the metric system?

 

No way. First, we do centimeters, so 195cm not 1.95m.

Second, 2m is crazy high. You pity people over 2m for their terrible life in a society that is not accustomed to that height, you don’t envy them. 

Is there any chance for her to win? I mean, whether it happened or not, it’s word against word, right?

No. Nuclear plant has a fixed output, zero elasticity of production. It has to sell all the electricity it produces, even if it should sell it for 0.

But, it doesn’t really matter. There certainly exists such a day price that nuclear is competitive with solar and is able to sell the same amount of produce as before.