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.

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.

Interesting. Good to know.

Ah, interesting. Good to know.

Interesting.

Not the answer I’m looking for, but still interesting. Thanks for the information!

So, a moment of curiosity.

If my theoretical pistol did get pulled into am MRI machine, stuck against it by the magnet, and I, for the purpose of scientific inquiry, pulled the trigger, should I expect the bullet to fire more or less as normal, to fire, but the bullet be pulled back to the machine, or for the bullet to not move, or not move more than an inch or so from the barrel?

when it quits bring entertaining.

It’s utility for the original purpose, communication without limits, (or checking for coffee) is being diminished, and at some point, ill stop using it for that. But as long as there are jokes and titties, it will still be a source of entertainment.

Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.

And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.

your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say

So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?

The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.

But I’m with you. No kings.

As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.

They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.

We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.

Do none of you people have clothes pins? Or does that count as Neutral Good?

Also, CG and CN need to be switched. There is no way the bottle hack counts as “good.”

I wouldn’t choose such a system, I think, but I can’t say that there aren’t at least a few half decent arguments for it.

A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn’t automatically mean “powerless figurehead.”

Given the way the US has been recently, I’m willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.

Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word “training” to make it fit that sentence above.

Ain’t she a beaut?

I seem to recall reading that a German scientist did the experiment that lead directly to the atom bomb before we did our in the US, but that he misinterpreted the results, and tossed the whole line of research.

You could always just say “whoops, I read the question wrong,” particularly since the rest of your answer was right.