You don’t mention to people what you don’t mention to people!

I raise my standing desk. Occasionally.

The wacky waving inflatable arm-flailing tube man can be characterized as a 3D slice of a conscious, four dimensional entity (with balls)

That sounds like it’s going to get real messy real fast

Look how they massacred my boy

OR IS IT??

Not a near-term solution, but the Free Software Foundation just announced the LibrePhone project!

This is exactly why giving ID scans to online sevices is a terrible idea, even ignoring the privacy aspect.

Sure am glad we have police robots in the sky to protect us from 19 year old kids stealing stuff from Walmart

I’d love them, but like others have said, not if made by Meta, and not if they rely on sending all my data to cloud services to function.

It seems maybe you’re actually misunderstanding. As I mentioned above, both you and the other commenter are certainly correct that the surrounding atmosphere (water in your case) exerts force on the objects as they fall, with varying effects depending on object density. However, if you take two objects that have vastly more density than the water (let’s say a big tungsten rod and another tungsten rod that has a hollow core), they will drop at approximately the same rate in the water even if their density vs each other varies. The greater the difference of their density versus the density of the medium, the less the effect of the medium. Is there still technically an effect? Sure, but that effect is negligible from a human perceptual perspective.

While that is true, two properly selected objects (such as the ones mentioned above) can reduce the effect of air resistance to levels negligible to human perception, demonstrating that heavier objects do not intrinsically fall faster.

Four.

I think a bowling ball would actually just be a solid topologically. The finger holes are just indentations rather than holes that go all the way through. IANAT, though.

Technically no, this photographer is putting flowers under a blacklight and photographing them, resulting in a picture of basically what a human would see IRL in that scenario (aside from things like contrast/exposure variances, etc). It’s not really the same as what UV sensing animals would see. These photos are of regions of the flower converting UV light into human-visible visible light (via fluorescence, same thing as a blacklight poster). UV sensing animals are seeing actual ultraviolet being reflected by the flower as well as visible light, so it’s not the same thing.

Damn, that’s poetry