That would require sticking two batteries together in a permanent sort of way, which would be varying shades of difficult. It would also wreck the current standard paradigm, which is designed around 1.5V battery chemistry. Even a "9V battery" is actually made of six 1.5V cells together, and a 6V lantern battery is made of four.

To get a single-cell battery to spit out 3V, we'd need to find new battery chemistry -- new substances that would spit out 3V.

Your typical alkaline battery, whether it's AA or C or D, has a nominal voltage of 1.5V -- that is, it can exert 1.5 "units" of "electrical pressure" on a circuit it's installed into.

That's not a super useful amount of voltage, but 3V is -- and by placing two batteries in series, you end up at 3V because you add the voltages together.

> That presumes that I'm talking to a rational person

You are, and because I'm so rational, I'm concluding that you're not actually interested in having a conversation, but instead punching down. This is evidenced by, among other things, your use of "shockingly" in your next sentence -- and your over-broad definition of "gun nut."

By your definition, to not be a "gun nut," one should want guns banned outright. That'd make a lot more people "gun nuts" than are actually warranted.

Now that I've actually had a chance to briefly experience you, I'm not actually sure I want to have a discussion with you if this is the kind of person you are, and how you interact with people.

Can you tell me I'm wrong?

> I'm tempted to say something like "you can't possibly be that stupid," but clearly you can.

Again, a terrible opener if you're actually looking to have a discussion.

>How unsurprising it is to find that you're also a gun nut.

I'm not, unless you're really reaching with your definitions. How do you define "gun nut" for the purpose of casually dismissing people?

>You're the one listening to the same politicians who've literally told you they won't solve any problems.

And yet you want them to solve gun violence.

> Delusional people are often unaware that they're deluded.

People who aren't delusional are also often unaware that they're deluded.

>For example, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to be manipulated by a bunch of jingoist politicians taking straight from the McCarthy playbook, just two days after our latest all-American homegrown slaughter.

Damn, then it's a good thing I'm not being manipulated in such a way, isn't it?

Listen, if you want to talk guns, I'm game, but calling me deluded and stupid isn't a good opener.

Nor is implying that America is somehow "uncivilized" for not doing things like banning "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines" and whatnot.

> Lie to yourself all you want. I don't have to indulge your delusion.

Fortunately, I'm not lying, and there's no "delusion" you have to indulge.

>Who is more likely to actually hurt you, the terrible Red Communist menace, or the nutjob who bought a gun with no trouble and decided he needed to rob a 7-11 for his next fix?

Let me guess: your solution lines up roughly with what's coming out of the Democrat thoughtspace.

>And which of these problems is Congress more interested in actually fixing?

The deadlock is because Democrats don't actually want to "solve a problem," and they get pushback on it, as they rightfully should.

> Like I said, weasel word.

Like I said, no.

>I already laid out specific threats. And why a video app isn't necessary to exploit them.

And what about all the other data China is picking up? Or the money that China is making from TikTok?

>...wait for our next scheduled mass shooting...

Oh, come on. Don't try to pivot to that fucking chestnut.

No, because you're going to take that and pooh-pooh anything anyone tries to say.

The threat isn't specifically enumerable because the threat space is that large.

> But you, random Reddit poster, are very literally not worth their time.

Individually, no. None of us are.

But we're not talking individuals; we're talking about broad access to all sorts of data, unimaginable data.

>Trying to ban it outright is a symptom of pretty obvious xenophobia,

Nope. It would be xenophobia if we were looking to ban anything outside of our shores, but we're not -- we're very specifically targeting a certain set of foreign entities who are demonstrably against American interests.

This is true; however, there are some strong ramifications to Facebook and Twitter being basically the public square of the Internet that aren't properly addressed by simply stating that the First Amendment always constrains the government and frees private actors to do as they will.

The platform vs publisher dichotomy embodied in the Section 230 debate is one such place where they resurface.

This very quickly runs into a whole mess of politics, but the very short form is that, as it stands, Facebook can decide all by itself that you no longer get to speak on their platform -- they can ban you, they can restrict your ability to post, etc.

The considered motion would say "Facebook, you can't do that anymore, unless we say you can/order you to."

It's not a liquid at all, my dude. It's a solid that has short-range order, but not long-range order.

It fits no other properties of a liquid.

But it's still a solid.

>In condensed matter physics and materials science, an amorphous solid (or non-crystalline solid) is a solid that lacks the long-range order that is characteristic of a crystal. The terms "glass" and "glassy solid" are sometimes used synonymously with amorphous solid; however, these terms refer specifically to amorphous materials that undergo a glass transition. Examples of amorphous solids include glasses, metallic glasses, and certain types of plastics and polymers.

>An amorphous metal (also known as metallic glass, glassy metal, or shiny metal) is a solid metallic material, usually an alloy, with disordered atomic-scale structure. Most metals are crystalline in their solid state, which means they have a highly ordered arrangement of atoms. Amorphous metals are non-crystalline, and have a glass-like structure.

They're solids. An amorphous solid is a solid.

Which isn't a liquid.

You did, and you're still wrong.

An amorphous solid can be described like a liquid, but that doesn't mean it is one. An amorphous solid does not flow; it does not assume the shape of its container.

It is not a liquid.

But a non-Newtonian fluid is still a fluid.

That's the same misconception.

"Amorphous solid" means that it lacks the long-range order characteristic of crystalline material. It resembles a liquid, but it is not a liquid.

That's admittedly a common misconception, but glass is an amorphous solid. It's not a liquid in any sense of the term, even though the atomic structure resembles a super-cooled liquid.

But it's still a fluid, which was the contention.

Oh, they abandoned the OGL entirely after the backlash, and published the entire 5.1 reference document under the incredibly lax Creative Commons license.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

I'm not actually sure. You're right, it's kinda vague.

The relevant part of the OGL 1.1 draft document is as follows:

> X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can’t and won’t cancel products out of fear that they’d be > seen as “similar to” Licensed Works. Therefore: > > A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is > substantially similar to a Licensed Work. > > B. You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, > worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.

Nothing specifically says they will act as you suggest, but neither does it specifically prohibit them. So I guess someone's conclusion would depend on how they feel about WOTC as a company, in this case.

> effectively lets them take and market any ideas

The purpose of the back-licensing was to ensure that WOTC couldn't get bogged down with nuisance lawsuits if they happened to independently come up with something similar to what a licensee did. It was never anything so nefarious as "ha ha we 0wn all j00r content now."

Can confirm. I was slightly skeptical as well but holy balls is WizTree so much faster on the scan.

It doesn't appear to sacrifice anything significant in terms of accuracy to achieve it, either.

>But I never understood what people meant when they say a baby was born addicted to crack.

When we speak of addiction, there are two main types.

The psychological addiction or dependence refers to the mental and emotional state where someone feels like they need whatever it is to be normal. We can safely ignore this one in terms of babies, since they don't have well-developed minds to have those responses.

The physical addiction or dependence, however, refers to actual quantifiable changes in the state of the body that makes the body physically require the drug. Addiction to alcohol, for example, causes physical changes in the structure of the brain in order to adapt. Removing alcohol, especially suddenly, throws the body into disarray due to the sudden change in the chemical bath.

This is what is meant when doctors say a baby is "born addicted" to a drug -- their brains have already been changed in the same way as a drug addict's.