It’s a category. All lines are arbitrary to a degree and “interbreeds and produces viable offspring” is not exceedingly arbitrary. You can have arguments around populations which could and would interbreed if they weren’t geographically distinct, you can argue about whether offspring needs to be viable no matter which way around the sexes of the parents are, or how large the percentage of viable offspring needs to be, but in the end, yep it makes sense to have a distinction somewhere around that bunch of criteria.

House cats and European wild cats are considered distinct species not because they’re genetically incompatible, but because they don’t interbreed to any significant degree – too many behavioural differences, and we’re not speaking about culture, here. So even if they could intermingle in theory in practice they don’t, so they stay separate, so they’re different species.

It’s kind of… a behavioural view on the genome? If you have a better idea, field it, there has to be some dividing line because taxa for the taxonomy god.

You know what also doesn’t make sense? Not boiling chicken in milk. I can guarantee you that’s not the milk of the chicken’s mother. The “don’t boil a young goat in the milk of its mother” thing at least has a proper interpretation in the sense of “there were some people who did that and God came and God said ‘yo that’s nasty, stop it’”. Something about not using sacrifice as an opportunity to practice transgression.

In the end I think scripture is just a tool for Jews to have something to argue about endlessly.

A crawler is a data processing machine, nothing more. therefor you are disrupting dataprocessing through data. If you think its not thats ok too.

Nah it’s definitely disrupting data processing, even though at a very low-key level – you’re not causing any data to become invalid or such. It’s the intent to harm the operator that’s the linchpin: “Jemandem einen Nachteil zufügen”. “Jemand” needs to be a person, natural or legal. And by stopping a crawler you don’t want to inflict a disadvantage on the operator you want to, at most, stop them from gaining an advantage. “Inflict disadvantage” and “prevent advantage” are two different things.

I would still advise to contact your lawyer in germany if you are thinking about hosting a zipbomb

Good idea, but as already said before: First, you should contact a sysadmin. Who will tell you it’s a stupid idea.

The intent is to get rid of crawlers which are disrupting the operation of your servers. That’s not intent of doing harm to the crawler’s operator, or their business. It’s analogous to telling a hawker to fuck off: Polite, no, but them being able to profit off you is not your responsibly, you do not have to accede to that. And intent to harm the ISP is even less reasonable to assume.

cant find the primary source anymore https://netzpolitik.org/2012/berec-studie-dpi-bei-vielen-providern-bereits-im-einsatz/

That’s out of date anyway. How about this one. DPI is limited to OSI level 5 and only allowed to resolve network issues – and a crawler crashing is not a network issue.

Countering Animator with Blender, that’s brutal. For at least some stuff Blender is also the better Illustrator.

Casting concrete requires building formwork to cast the concrete into. For any standardised shape constructing the formwork is easy: Just assemble it from the parts you have. Straight sections? The most common case. Rounded corners? As long as you’re fine with “should be round” and don’t require some very specific radius, those are probably also at hand. A gargoyle? Well that’s not an easy form to produce but once you have it, you can cast 1000 gargoyles.

Where 3d printing comes in is places where you have a shape that’s literally or nearly unique, where building the formwork would be a PITA. In all other cases, the traditional method is quicker and cheaper.

Also interesting is stuff like solar sintering plain sand.

It also needs crowd sourced legal assistance

Basically any union in Germany has access to an army of lawyers, your dues double as legal insurance covering anything related to work and welfare.

One refers to an indefinite and generic group, and it’s not a “they/them” in the sense that one does not exclude oneself from that group (it’s generic, after all). I guess universal quantification is close in meaning.

It’s a thing specific to English, or I guess Indo-European languages in general. All languages have first, second, and third person anything beyond that is non-standard. E.g. Finnish has a 0th person, “Infer who is meant from context”.

because it’s arguably a fourth person pronoun.

Even if you consider it a pronoun, which you’d then also have to do with “class” in “Class, please open the book at page 14”, it’s still second person plural. Arguments against “class” and chat" being a pronoun include that they’re nouns, I think that’s rather convincing.

Fourth person would be “One does not simply walk into Mordor”. “One does not address the fourth person”. I guess people got it mixed up with the 4th wall that’s why the confusion exists.

Severely disrupting other people’s data processing of significant import to them. By submitting malicious data requires intent to cause harm, physical destruction, deletion, etc, doesn’t. This is about crashing people’s payroll systems, ddosing, etc. Not burning some cpu cycles and having a crawler subprocess crash with OOM.

Why the hell would an ISP have a look at this. And even if, they’re professional enough to detect zip bombs. Which btw is why this whole thing is pointless anyway: If you class requests as malicious, just don’t serve them. If that’s not enough it’s much more sensible to go the anubis route and demand proof of work as that catches crawlers which come from a gazillion IPs with different user agents etc.

French fries is the standard German pool food. Like, nowhere else do you see stands selling nothing but fries (with ketchup and/or mayo, of course). And they just don’t taste as good anywhere else, I guess it’s the chlorine in the air making the salt taste extra special without actually tasting more salty.

The water molecule is amphoteric in aqueous solution

A water molecule in aqueous solution. How can you tell it’s being dissolved, or doing the dissolving?

I don’t even know whether I understand I just hear MacOS users griping about fullscreen, and a quick google gave quite recent results. Especially with fullscreen being incompatible with other windows on top (each fullscreen window necessary is on its own workspace) which would be highly annoying in Blender. You can configure blender to have file open dialogues, render results etc. in its main window, but certain stuff like preferences always open a second one.

They don’t (usually) display the temperature but they definitely sense it, and react to it. When the sensed temperature is at or higher than the set temperature, the valve will be closed, if it’s lower it will be opened. Mere valves can’t do that.

That’s what a thermostat is: A negative feedback control system regulating sensed temperature towards a setpoint, and keeping it there. They’re simple, inexpensive, reliable. Yes having the temperature sensor right next to the radiator isn’t ideal but unless the room is quite large that’s not an issue. Also with large rooms you probably have more than one heater and thus thermostat. And you could, in principle, put the thermostat far from the heater but I’ve never seen that done.

Those “valves” are, in fact, thermostats. They use thermal expansion of wax to open/close the valve to get to their set temperature. Settings 1-5 are 12, 16, 20, 24, 28 Celsius.

Can you fullscreen windows under MacOS yet?

That’s not deciding anything in the information-theoretical sense. We rely a lot on approximations and heuristics when it comes to day to day functioning.

You can’t decide the halting problem by saying “I’ll have a glance at it and go with whatever I think after thinking about it for half a second”. That’s not deciding the problem that’s giving up on it and computers are perfectly capable of doing that.

But humans can solve undecidables.

No, we can’t. Or, more precisely said: There is no version of your assertion which would be compatible with cause and effect, would be compatible with physics as we understand it.

Don’t blame me I didn’t do it. The universe just is that way.

What are you trying to argue, that humans aren’t Turing-complete? Which would be an insane self-own. That we can decide the undecidable? That would prove you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s called undecidable for a reason. Deciding an undecidable problem makes as much sense as a barber who shaves everyone who doesn’t shave themselves.

Aside from that why would you assume that checking results would, in general, involve solving the halting problem.

What are the chances they figured out we’re trying to decode their speech and they’re trolling us?