The cultural relationship with time is more important than its absolute measurement.

This was the statement at the top of this discussion. It values the local concept of what time should be over an objective measurement of what time is.

The proposed change wouldn’t cause much of a problem. But the idea under the statement I quoted would.

that is such a small edge case that it’s not necessary to talk about them

Did you manage to overlook this point?

In general, stay out of the ducking way.

And in both cases, missing the point. Categorize based on the chemistry, not the source of the chemical.

That would kind of miss the whole point.

That’s an untenable position. I mean, Cocaine is a plant, too.

I mean we as a group. Some of us will, but they will be decried by the rest of us. Too much, too far, too soon.

If we could all get on the same page, that would be one thing. But it’s like unions, isn’t it? Once man stopping work is just quitting. The whole factory stopping work is industrial action.

Plenty of countries sign on to nuclear non proliferation.

Besides, the Federation did well enough without it.

Mark Hamil did that once in Batman.

Huzzah!

kind of my point. Trains need accurately measured time in order to run properly.

Tell that to the trains.

Your last point is wrong, at least as you have stated it. Evaporation time is based on surface area, and the required power is based on volume, but you expressed the amount of water as a length.

Still, metric is way better.

Scientists were so caught up with weather they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

The leftist version of such people wouldn’t be a propagandist, but a whip. Someone to help herd the cats, as it were. Someone to help keep the important things in mind in the midst of the “flood the zone” technique that disperses our efforts.

I don’t think we have the stomach to pull that off.

I’d love to be wrong, though.

Everybody isn’t going to lose. All of us will, but the rich assholes are gonna win.

Done people already end up dead most of the time? Our coverage is good, but it’s never gonna be that good.

No reason to cut it back, though.

No-one hates democracy like a Republican.

Interesting. That’s a good origin, and makes sense. They should have explained that a bit in the article, though.

Thanks for the extra info.