No, actually, Gila monsters and komodo dragons, as Anguimorphs are, like snakes and lizards, likely to be somewhat closely-related to ancient Mosasaurs, but no other famous mesozoic creatures.

Ah, thanks, I thought I'd read that it was outside, but didn't feel like doing the math to confirm in that second. I'll edit it!

E: Ah, I have figured out what it was: the Sun-Jupiter barycentre is outside the surface of the sun, and that's why the Barycentre is a bad metric. Different argument.

If it makes you feel better, I hold that the proper term is Archosaur, which covers Dinosaurs, Crocodilians, and Birds. And cladistically, in terms of common ancestors, birds are and have always been reptiles.

Also, Re: the Pluto thing: what you should really be angry about is that the only reason the Moon doesn't qualify as a planet is because the IAU specifically excludes it. By all the rules, the moon would at least qualify as a binary planet with Earth, because the moon's orbit around the sun never actually crosses itself. It describes an orbit basically the same shape as the earth's. If Pluto, Ceres, and Eris aren't planets, then Luna definitely is, or their rules are not consistent.

E: removed an innacuracy. See commenter below.

In case you weren't being sarcastic: Yes, that's a direct quote from the Paedophile traitor, the Fuhrer in Orange, shitlord of Hamberder.

He claimed that the only reason america had COVID cases to report was because we were testing for them, stating directly that testing was bad for publicity.

Teaching meets all of these criteria. The one it doesn't meet is "make enough money to survive"

Technically, the "light water" is just an oxide ion: an oxygen atom with two extra electrons, filling its second electron energy level.

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe... Just maybe, these wizards should be casting a protection from fire spell before trying other new spells? My own research says the incantation should be "Pyroprostata".

We aren't given the full eulogy in the comic, only the first lines of the main function. I imagine that it would continue with defining the functions.

I'd sooner bring the constellation down, so that it isn't a fucking Kessler syndrome waiting to happen, perpetually destroying earth-based astronomy as well.

I think that "books", "gardening" and "family" were meant to be functions, each of which was called each year over the 88 year lifespan.

I feel like "you get what you tolerate" is absolutely on point, though. You tolerate Nazis, you get fucking Nazis. If you tolerate LGBTQ, then what do you know, the LGBTQ people feel safe enough to start coming out of the woodwork. When immigrants are tolerated and treated as the valuable population they are, you get more immigrants. The question is, which of those is going to actually pose a problem when they start growing in number? That is the one you shouldn't tolerate. It's a pretty easy rule that gets borne out. Currently, the US tolerates paedophiles, corpocrats, rapists, Nazis and other fascists, and traitors. That's going swimmingly. I hope that Canada can learn the lesson the US has not.

For the uninitiated: this is the current most-efficient method found of packing 17 unit squares inside another square. You may not like it, but this is what peak efficiency looks like.

(Of course, 16 squares has a packing coefficient of 4, compared to this arrangement's 4.675, so this is just what peak efficiency looks like for 17 squares)

Edit: For the record, since this blew up, a tiny nitpick in my own explanation above: a smaller value of the packing coefficient is not actually what makes it more efficient (as it is simply the ratio of the larger square's side to the sides of the smaller squares). The optimal efficiency (zero interstitial space) is achieved when the packing coefficient is precisely equal to the square root of the number of smaller squares. Hence why the case of n=25, with a packing coefficient of 5, is actually more efficient than this packing of n=17, with a packing coefficient of 4.675. Since sqrt(25)=5, that case is a perfectly efficient packing, equal to the case of n=16 with coefficient of 4. Since sqrt(17)=4.123, this packing above is not perfectly efficient, leaving interstices. Obviously. This also means that we may yet find a packing for n=17 with a packing coefficient closer to sqrt(17), which would be an interesting breakthrough, but more important are the questions "is it possible to prove that a given packing is the most efficient possible packing for that value of n" and "does there exist a general rule which produces the most efficient possible packing for any given value of n unit squares?"

Except, why tarnish your own reputation? For true malicious compliance, you need to publish it not under your own name, but rather under the name of avian intelligence, and call it "100 ai-generated and completely untested slop tips on shadows and fire, compiled under the express direction of <Professor's Name>". The only part of it that shouldn't be AI-generated is the introduction and acknowledgements section, in which you publish every record of them demanding that you use this piece of shit, including each of your strenuous warnings.

In the acknowledgements section, point out five different times where the rituals will, if completed to the AI's specifications, cause the imminent demise of the reader. Thank AI and the professor who foisted it upon you for these "contributions". Offer no solutions, but suggest that volume 2 of the series will feature precisely zero avian intelligence, and will be written by you. Then, publish.

ETA: Source: Am chemistry teacher. Was handed ai-generated curriculum. Pointed out multiple different times when the curriculum could lead to the potential death of students or people in their care (as a representative sample, the curriculum said that one of the most common IV normal saline solution ingredients was KCl —the lethal ingredient in lethal injections— and there was a lab which called for students to boil 95% isopropanol on a hot plate at max heat —550C— outside of a fume hood, with no procedure or safety section). Am no longer expected to use AI slop curriculum. You have to make it clear that using this shit puts the institution into active legal jeopardy.

If this were real, one of the kids who admits they have no idea what they're doing would have already, quite confidently, stolen a pair of scissors from god knows where, cut out every single square, then arranged them in numerical order. Only THEN would they admit to not knowing wtf they're doing.

Also, D even gets the entire bay of Naples, in addition to the cuisines of 3-4 billion people. Anyone who wants anything from A can get anything from there in Oceania.

D is so OP, I cannot imagine anyone picking anything else unless they are basing their choice on where they live.

It was originally designed to convince people that capitalist greed and acting as a landlord is morally abhorrent and the whole system should be replaced with socialism. The idea was, and I am not joking or exaggerating at all, to play the monopoly you know, and realize that it's the worst game. Then, you play it with slightly different rules that change how land ownership and rent works, and you realize that literally everyone can win, and everyone plays cooperatively.

Then, capitalists saw it, stole the idea, and the original inventor didn't have sufficient money to fight for her exclusive rights, so now we have only the capitalist, rent-seeking shit show of a game that Parker brothers stole.

It's not "monopoly". It's The Landlord's Game.

Technically, the legal term is Exile, IIRC. But doing that without the backing of legality is also what you said.

This belongs in uplifting news

c is a measurable constant, not some unit that is arbitrarily defined. Like Boltzmann's Constant, or the ground state hyperfine transition frequency of the Cesium-133 atom... it just... Is.

Therefore, it is a useful tool to define units. You claim it is a tautology because we write it in units of meters per second, while the meter is defined based on c. This is easily disproven, as you can represent the speed of light in any unit of velocity. It is a fundamental constant, derivable through experiment without any units a priori.

You can always trust SatansMaggotyCumFart to chime in with the wholesome memes.