No, it’s not “banned” but effectively it is. It’s illegal to proselytize. I mean, the Dalai Lama fled to India in the 50’s because of China. I won’t even get into Xinjiang’s labor camps. And no, race mixing is not a bad thing, but that is not what this is, especially when it’s done deliberately and forcefully. I like how you try to conflate race mixing with ethnic dilution. China aims to erase the Tibetan culture, not mix with it. There are way fewer Tibetans than Han. Magnitudes fewer. So fuck off with your weird sex shit and get off your high horse.
They’ve been diluting the ethnic Tibetan population and oppressing the Muslim population of Xinjiang (Uyghurs) by banning religion. They certainly won’t foster “unity” in the way we think and will use their influence for self-preservation. If this is for unity, it’s to keep their citizens in check so they can stay in power.
It's a 3-2-1 backup, one drive is 16tb and the other is a backup that turns on once a week. If one drive fails they're under warranty. Files are also uploaded to the cloud.
If I put a tungsten cube under water I wouldn’t really call it wet. But if I sprayed it with water I would. But that changes when it’s a person, no? The type of surface it is depends as well, not all surfaces are equal - like something that is water phobic (aerogel) can make something not wet even though it (person + aerogel) is in contact with water. I’m not arguing water isn’t wet. I absolutely think it is by our language. But I am saying there isn’t a good way of arriving at that conclusion by going full Webster Dictionary.
“It’s when water is touching a surface” blah blah I can easily disprove it by doing this or that. There is a surface of water in a bucket, does that become wet when I pour more water? Then you have to say “solid surfaces,” but furthermore am I “wet” if I enter a body of water fully submerged? No, I’m “under water” and saying I’m wet would be weird. Is the bottom of a bucket “wet” or does it contain water? How much water can something have on it for it to be “wet” or “submerged”? For most of history language has been arbitrary and man-made. All of these cases are caught by our arbitrary rules when we encounter them. By arguing water is wet or not without mentioning anthropic usage would make you wrong on the grounds of your argument.
OST gang ❤️
No, it’s not “banned” but effectively it is. It’s illegal to proselytize. I mean, the Dalai Lama fled to India in the 50’s because of China. I won’t even get into Xinjiang’s labor camps. And no, race mixing is not a bad thing, but that is not what this is, especially when it’s done deliberately and forcefully. I like how you try to conflate race mixing with ethnic dilution. China aims to erase the Tibetan culture, not mix with it. There are way fewer Tibetans than Han. Magnitudes fewer. So fuck off with your weird sex shit and get off your high horse.
int 0->inf of (5sin(x)/xdx)
No, I will not solve it.
They’ve been diluting the ethnic Tibetan population and oppressing the Muslim population of Xinjiang (Uyghurs) by banning religion. They certainly won’t foster “unity” in the way we think and will use their influence for self-preservation. If this is for unity, it’s to keep their citizens in check so they can stay in power.
I have an 8gb ATA storage drive on my desk… wonder if it stills works
I’ve had the misfortune of posting on Craigslist Forums and then having at least 1-2 people shit on me or call me a moron
For now!
It's a 3-2-1 backup, one drive is 16tb and the other is a backup that turns on once a week. If one drive fails they're under warranty. Files are also uploaded to the cloud.
NAS. 1 drive = maybe 8 watts. Motherboard itself = 12w.
That list is no longer accurate. See cybenetics labs.
Ordering parts for my NAS. Need the hard drives and pico PSU. Then studying for the Sec+ because I don’t have an internship.
If I put a tungsten cube under water I wouldn’t really call it wet. But if I sprayed it with water I would. But that changes when it’s a person, no? The type of surface it is depends as well, not all surfaces are equal - like something that is water phobic (aerogel) can make something not wet even though it (person + aerogel) is in contact with water. I’m not arguing water isn’t wet. I absolutely think it is by our language. But I am saying there isn’t a good way of arriving at that conclusion by going full Webster Dictionary.
“It’s when water is touching a surface” blah blah I can easily disprove it by doing this or that. There is a surface of water in a bucket, does that become wet when I pour more water? Then you have to say “solid surfaces,” but furthermore am I “wet” if I enter a body of water fully submerged? No, I’m “under water” and saying I’m wet would be weird. Is the bottom of a bucket “wet” or does it contain water? How much water can something have on it for it to be “wet” or “submerged”? For most of history language has been arbitrary and man-made. All of these cases are caught by our arbitrary rules when we encounter them. By arguing water is wet or not without mentioning anthropic usage would make you wrong on the grounds of your argument.
You did not have permission to take this picture of me.