Just for the record, and context: That wasn’t misogyny, it’s not calling any woman anything (though using a word vulgarly referring to female genitalia), it’s the established insult for Merz. Really doesn’t translate well, not so much word-wise but connotation and implication-wise. Cf. the American vs. English vs. Australian usage of the word, doesn’t translate at all and that’s within the same language.

It’s an imputed high-school nickname calling him, in my reading, an immature braggart. You know, 12yold brags about their extensive sexual experience, gets called “pussy hunter” in return to make fun of him. There’s also the additional linguistic quibble that the word, to the amusement of the rest of the republic, simply means “face” in Bavarian and can be used there more or less in the sense of “gob”, as in “shut your gob”. He indeed has a big one.

Habeck is a realo, not fundie. Support for him among green voters (which is what actually counts, not party members, he’ll get his nomination because who else should they run) is overwhelming, very good among SPD voters, AfD voters hate him and that won’t change any time soon, CDU is where he’s going to have to make inroads. Perception-wise the problem is competence, blame that on the Bild campaign and I absolutely expect that to shift very quickly once people actually hear him in a debate.

I mean, sure, that’s a domination relation but it doesn’t really get at the core of domination, either, but tells us where dominance fits in the larger context. The core idea is much easier: f : A -> X dominates g : B -> X if there is an h : B -> A such that g = f . h. That is, if there’s a way to turn potato mash into food, and one to turn sliced potatoes into food (say, a hot pan with some oil) then frying mash dominates because there’s a way to turn potato slices into mash, but none to turn mash into slices. It can also be the case that two functions dominate each other, e.g. when you look at cooking tea with a teabag, and without a teabag: As bagged tea can be unbagged, and unbagged tea bagged, both dominate, in fact, they’re equivalent. All this is up to equivalence of fried potatoes and hash browns which can be easily established by trying both with eggs and ham, and both with apple sauce. Best paired with a doughnut of coffee¹.

¹ I have the feeling mug manufacturers don’t get any of this.

Mostly they’re dried, including pod, the rest is genetics.

They are botanically nuts, though: They are indehiscent, meaning they do not open to release their seeds. They’re also fruit. It’s e.g. pine nuts which aren’t nuts because pine cones do indeed open and release the seeds. Of which you should roast a couple and mush up with a wee bit of garlic, a metric pound of basil, some salt, some proper hard cheese, and quantum satis good olive oil. Use a mortar the basil wants to get squeezed, pre-chop everything or you’re going to be there forever. Throw your pasta, shape is not that important as long as it’s bronze-cut, into a pan at lowish heat, put your pesto on top, add some of that pasta water (incl. the starch in there), the saponids in the garlic will help with emulsifying everything. Reduce very carefully you don’t want to denature the cheese.

I guess making a distinction, in the culinary context, between nuts and peanuts makes sense because allergy considerations, legumes are a class of their own there.

Organisation is actually pretty good at the battalion level, there’s plenty of EU Battlegroups integrating neighbouring armies on a deep level – or at least making them acquainted with each other. Gotta know the MRE exchange rates. And that’s not counting stuff that you mentioned, like the Dutch land army being rolled into German C&C or the German/French brigade.

What’s lacking are strategic C&C capabilities on the EU level: There’s just too few of them, there should be more cooperation on that level (member states have those kinds of capabilities) which is exactly what the “EU army” thing is about, operationally. Although it has to be said that push come to shove, with so many EU members in NATO, everyone would just re-assign everything NATO to the EU should the NATO fall flat. Armies have scrambled into fighting stances from worse positions.

Macron could lead Europe, yes, but first he has to manage to lead France.

Back then, Germany was barely warming up to the idea of a EU military. Now it seems to be a done deal, the European motor is going to churn and Poland seems to want to be part of it.

Tigers are territorial and solitary but quite social, they don’t usually get into fights when they meet, that only happens when they have an actual territorial conflict because there’s too many tigers on too little land. They’re perfectly fine with others visiting their prowling grounds, they might even hunt together, just don’t overstay your welcome. Actually not that terribly different from how humans treat their houses.

Everything that comes out of a petrochemical plant can be made without oil, in fact BASF had recipes in place for decades now and is switching sources as the price shifts. Push come to shove they can produce everything from starch. It’s also why they hardly blinked when Russia turned off the gas.

The carbon that actually ends up in steel is a quite negligible amount (usually under 1%, over 2% you get cast iron), you can get that out of the local forest, and to reduce the iron hydrogen works perfectly, the first furnances are already online.

That implies that we can make electricity everywhere, which is technically true but not really the case because there’s countries with more and with less free space, with more suitable places and less suitable places to put renewables.

Those ammonia tankers will happen. At that point btw we’re not just talking about electricity, but also chemical feedstock.

Quick intuition boost for the non-believers: What do things look like if you’re standing on the surface of the bowling ball? Are feather and earth falling towards you at the same speed, or is there a difference?

As to “what’s falling faster” my point is still that everything’s falling at the same speed, because the only non-arbitrary reference point to measure things from is the centre of gravity of the whole system, earth, feather, ball, all of them together.

Well it may still be arbitrary, but at least it’s not geocentric or feathercentric or ballcentric. All three can be unhappy with the choice which means it’s fair.

Flip that reference point to the earth though and yes the ball is approaching ever so slightly faster than the feather (side note: is our earth spherical or are we at least making it an oblong?). Flip it to the ball and the feather is falling a lot slower towards it than the earth is. Which is probably how I should have started explaining this: The mass difference between feather and earth with respect to the ball is so massive that it actually makes quite a difference while between feather and ball wrt. earth it’s negligible.

I understand and agree with red’s math, and I said no such thing as you put into quotation marks there.

Clarity of presentation is never a trivial matter. You can be right all you like if you don’t get it across then it will be for nought but inflating your own ego.

You said it was movement, aka change in position over time, not acceleration, or you would have said “x will accelerate at”, not “earth will move at”. I already explained why it’s questionable as a term of acceleration.

And this could’ve been over after a single comment of you saying “oh, yeah, misspoke”. Your math in the comment after that misbegotten term checks out, that’s not the issue here, it’s your presentation that went all haywire.

That’s not what you wrote, or at least not what I complained about. You wrote:

BUT earth will move with gM/m1

where it was previously established that m1 and M are masses, and I interpreted g to be G (Newton’s gravitational constant) instead of g as in “gravitational acceleration caused by earth” because… well, I’m not actually sure. The whole thing is already a mess of capitalisation but more importantly then it’d be acceleration, not movement, worse, the specific properties of the earth are included twice (once in g, then in one of the mass terms).

the fact that i wasted my time on low iq person like you

Maybe you should spend less time on insulting people and more on communicating your thoughts clearly.

you idiot i was talking about accelwration,

Then why did you say “move” instead of “accelerate”. And the units don’t match acceleration, either. Best I can tell it’s some fraction of a term. If you want it to be an acceleration then you’re missing a squared distance, and if you want it to be acceleration, why are both mass terms in there.

For someone who throws around things like “that’s non-technical brainrot” damn is your prose fuzzy.

It’s not nonsense when it makes people understand, buddy. And don’t get all “oh be technical” on me when you say things like “earth will move with <something with the same units as G>”. Something that’s definitely something, but not m/s.

inertial frame

I was talking about time-steps when I said frame. Hence “simulation”, and “one frame, then another, then another”, referencing successive moments in time.

BUT earth will move with gM/m1

No. Multiplication is associative, you can switch the masses around as you please, nowhere in the formula does it say “the greater mass” or “the smaller mass” you could just as well re-arrange the formula and come up with “earth moves with gm1/M”. Last but not least there’s only one force acting on both objects… and gM/m1 is neither a speed nor a force. G * 100kg / 20kg is 5G. Measured in Nm²/kg² which is the same we started with because the two kg cancel each other out.

They both fall towards their shared centre of gravity. It’s this “the earth revolves around the sun” thing again, no it doesn’t, they both revolve around their shared centre of gravity (which, yes, is within the sun but still makes it wobble). That centre is very far away from the ball and very close to the earth and both are moving at the same speed towards it (because acceleration doesn’t depend on mass), blip to the next frame of the simulation now the centre of gravity moved towards the ball, next frame still closer to the ball, that is the reason both reach it at the same time, not because one is faster than the other.

…or so it would be, if the shared centre of gravity of ball and earth wouldn’t lie within the earth so they don’t actually both reach it, the earth is in the way, the rest of the acceleration is turned into static friction: Because they both are still falling even when in contact. But really that complication only exists because they have volumes which is why I factored it out from the rest of the reasoning.

The French want to expand the programme precisely because it is expensive: Under French doctrine you don’t really need more nukes to defend the continent vs. the country, but the costs can be shared.

Also there’s no way to get Germany to stop buying F35s without switching Germany’s nuclear sharing over from the US to France: Eurofighters aren’t certified for US nukes due to industrial espionage concerns. France wants to extend their doctrine of strategic autonomy to the whole of Europe, again, costs, which is why they regularly get pissy when other member states buy US equipment.

Hey I’m not a train nerd it’s just that nerds are fascinating :)