Important thing to note, though, and why I don’t block individuals anymore (instead I tag them):

Blocking a user doesn’t prevent them from interacting or replying to your posts. It just hides everything they post or comment from you, as well as any replies afterward. It’s a reverse shadow ban, because it makes it so you are the only person who can’t see what they post.

I personally recommend just tagging them in red and feeling smug in your ability to ignore what they have to say.

I’m partial to his full title of address:

The Paedophile Traitor, the Polyfelonious, the Fuhrer in Orange, Shitlord of Hamberder.

So, since this is specifically aged urine that she’s spraying on her scalp…

I’m fairly certain it’s a base, not an acid, since the urea and uric acid break down into ammonia. Do you have more information? I’m not saying you’re wrong about the effects, (if anything a base would be even worse) but I thought the caustic nature was why urine was traditionally used in leather tanning.

Indeed! There’s a reason we often don’t fill weather balloons with helium

I dunno, I can think of very few things in my life which would not be significantly improved by a 7.7% increase in efficiency or ease, or by a commensurate decrease in cost.

Tell that to the guy who has to buy a hundred eight extra condoms!

As would straight up lead ingots.

The other person who replied to you is deeply wrong. See my reply to them here for complete calculations. You can’t simply ignore the mass of the gas with which you’re replacing the air, despite their suggestion. If the mass of what’s inside the balloon doesn’t matter, you might as well fill it with lead. Hydrogen is something like 7% More efficient than helium for balloons. You have a good idea, and hydrogen balloons don’t just explode for no reason. They’re dangerous, but saying that they’re necessarily going to flameout is ridiculous

No! What matters is the comparative density, and you must calculate the total mass of the air displaced, as well as the mass of the gas being used to displace it. Hydrogen is half as dense as helium. Is it a tiny mass difference? Actually, no, it’s quite significant.

Let us be charitable to my ability to calculate and say that the condoms are, themselves, massless (please don’t make me use more complex equations in an internet comment). Given 70kg of displaced air, and using the ISO atmospheric density of air of 1.2250kg/m^3 at 15C, and that hydrogen and helium have densities of 0.0841kg/m^3 and 0.1662kg/m^3 respectively at that temp, each cubic metre of air displaced by hydrogen reduces the effective weight of the balloon by 82 grams more than helium, meaning that, given a fixed number of condoms, they need be filled only 93% as full with hydrogen (reducing strain) or, given a fixed volume, we require only 93% as many balloons. For a 70kg person with massless balloons each containing 40L of gas, this amounts to 1642 condoms for helium, but only 1534 of Hydrogen! That’s a difference of over a hundred condoms that this guy doesnt have to buy.

If need be, I can provide work shown for this problem.

Source? If my Old English courses and far too many years of Shakespeare reading are anything to go by, “Thy” and “thine” are the equivalents of “your” and “yours”, respectively. The way you describe it makes no sense whatever, especially with the idiom “to thee and thine”, which is the equivalent of “to you and yours”. It seems to me that you are correct that it should be “thy”, but for precisely the wrong reason.

That answers my question, thanks! I was trying to figure out if that incontrovertibility was actually the mitigating factor, since he’s personally responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes against hundreds and hundreds of innocents, all of which his own statements effectively admit, and is also clearly guilty of treason, which is one of the few crimes that is regularly punished with death, so I figured that would neatly delineate it, and it did. I guess, then, that it’s not because crimes can’t be fully proven that you oppose the death penalty.

Not necessarily in favour of the death penalty, but would you say that the crimes of Donald Trump qualify as having been “established in an irrefutable manner”? I certainly would, and his irrefutably proven crimes include treason, admitted rape, financial crimes in the billions of dollars, suborning genocide, and a myriad of direct war crimes. Are these sufficient to convince you that some place like the ICC in the Hague should have the death penalty as an option, since so many of the war crimes and crimes against humanity are irrefutably proven? For instance, should Benjamin Netanyahu face the death penalty, should he ever be brought to the Hague? Just genuinely curious about the implications of your take.