lvxferre

Here's the link.

Major mention, ani.social - here's a link to the relevant discussion and the outcome, from ani.social's PoV.

Fritted glass is a pain. If reverse flow and plain acid (both mentioned by the text) don't solve it, piranha solution (the text calls it "acidic peroxide solution"; it's sulphuric acid with some hydrogen peroxide) does the trick, without screwing with the pores. Just go easy on the hydrogen peroxide, to avoid explosions. (They can do worse than just kill you: they can ruin the glassware.)

In fact piranha solution [dis]solves almost everything. There's also "basic piranha" (NH₃ + H₂O₂), good for obnoxious ionic compounds (the ammonia chelates them and tells them to fuck off).

I wouldn't bother with chromic acid, aqua regia or HF, they aren't worth the trouble.

Before: cumin, garlic, paprika. After: everything else, including salt.

Those three when browned are delicious, the others either burn easily (like oregano) or are liquid (like my pepper sauce).

Question, based on this post: which grammatical rule does "they are so many types of airplanes" violate? It's clearly agrammatical, but I can't quite pinpoint why.

Now you’re really straining.

You do realise that this reads a lot like an implicit acknowledgement that you're a failure to counter any argument contradicting your claim... right? "Run to the hills!"

It's true but keep in mind that the other user is ignorant on the difference between "ignorance" and "dumbness", as this comment shows. So he'll likely distort what you said into "you think that people in the past were dumb?" like he did there.

Then you are strawmanning.

That is not a straw man. The other user is simply not cooperating on the arbitrary restrictions that you're imposing on his argument. A straw man would require him to misrepresent your position.

You are however cherry picking.

Appeal to popularity and/or authority carry a good deal of weight, actually.

Fourth fallacy / irrationality: argumentum ad nauseam. Repeating it won't "magically" make it truer.

If a smart guy sees it, and you don’t, it’s fair to conclude that the error is yours.

In this situation, you wouldn't be concluding, only assuming.

But this is obvious.

Nope.

You are merely straining to refute me.

Here's a great example of why assumptions are not reliable - you're assuming why I'm uttering something, even if you have no way to know it. And it happens to be false. [I don't care enough about you to "refute you". I simply enjoy this topic.]

The sensible conclusion is that we really do see things differently these days. That we have gained and lost.

We see things differently, but "we gained and lost" is yet another fallacy: moving the goalposts.

Also, it's rather "curious" how you skipped what I said about the Romans, even if it throws a bucket of cold water over your easy-to-contest "smart people in the past believed it!".

The logical conclusion is that there’s something wrong with that one person.

No. That's a fallacy (lack of logic) called "argumentum ad populum" (appeal to the masses). Truth value of a statement does not depend on who or how many utter it; you need to analyse the statement itself to know which side there's something wrong with.

Note that claiming that "the smartest people did it, so there's something wrong with us" is a related fallacy called "argumentum ad verecundiam" (appeal to authority). And another too, called petitio principii (begging the question) - did they do it?

Based on Roman history I don't think that they did; the smart people were always a bit more cautious about this sort of superstition, but still "played along" when convenient for them. Octavian seizing Mark Anthony's will, Constantine using Christianity as a political move, the general tendency to interpret gods as abstract aspects instead of actual "big humans in the sky", so goes on.

character encoding issues broke the purchase flow for a customer with a non-English character in their name

Kind of off-topic, but coders introducing this sort of bug should be punished with the same bugs happening when they type K, W, Y, or apostrophes in the software that they use. Just for shits and giggles.

I'm [half-]joking with the above. Serious now: I'm an outsider but it's easy to notice that the software industry is eager to ditch things that are traditional, working, functional and well tested, just for the sake of appeal to novelty: "its old so I assoooooome dat is outdated y u live in past? lol lmao REEE!". And that applies to quality assurance.

...except that you can't trust someone to judge the quality of their own brainfarts. You need someone else to do it for you. And do it before the brainfart affects the lives of someone else outside your business.

This would sound extremely xenophobic in another context. Here, though? Someone from China, living in England, poking fun at Chinglish cars? It's part of the joke!

Dunno about "we", but "I" do. I got plenty malice to watch them suffer! MWAHAHAHA [/evil villain laughter]

Serious now: if the person can't be arsed to help themself, or if their request for help sounds like a demand/whining/passive aggressiveness. A noob saying "pls help how do i shoot web tnx" is 100% fine in my book, a "waah, why isn't this community helping me? [insert easy-to-websearch question]" is not.

And this happens often?

Can't recall doing it in Lemmy. But I did all the time in a certain other platform.