Congratulations on getting what you voted for.

This is the way.

I’m an actual engineer with a degree and everything, although this is not my area of expertise, it’s one I’m familiar with.

They could do something like you suggest, but every step becomes more expensive and less effective. The exhaust from a coal fired power plant is still plenty hot, and more energy could be extracted from it. But it requires more and more to make less and less.

The curse of every engineer is to see a way to them every waste stream into a useful product, but not being able to do so profitably. (Which means no-one will approve the project)

The difficulty is, to put it in very simple terms, is that physics doesn’t allow that. The less simple explanation is a thermodynamics textbook, and trust me, you don’t want that.

Everything generates heat. Everything. Everything. Anything that seems to generate “cold” is generating more heat somewhere else.

Note your use of the word “cool.”

A condenser will generate the same amount of heat that they are trying to dissipate.

I suspect that the reaction to the edited video spooked them. They were expecting to get away with that, and when it was so easily called pot as a fraud, they had to reconsider.

Context is as important to language as syntax.

Context is important to the message, yes. But if I need the context to understand a particular word, I would understand the message just as well without that word.

Yea. Not helpful.

I’m aware of the existence of contranyms. None of the examples you gave apply, as they just have different meanings, or the same leaving with different connotations.

Right, that’s “speaking figuratively.” There are rules for that.

But a word that means the opposite of what it means is not a useful word.

I’d hate to find a box in my lab marked “inflammable.”

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Are we expecting the Democratic party to actually support him? Seems the national leadership would rather see someone else in his spot.

Indeed it is so.

Nevertheless, assholes.

I’m trying to determine if we are using words to mean the same things. It seems we are not.

Since I don’t take issue with your goals, only your vocabulary, I suppose that continuing to discuss it is pointless.

If the employers are using computers to read my resume, why shouldn’t I used a computer to write it?

Assholes to the lot of them.

Would you claim that the soap box failed of no-one spoke against him?

Would you claim the jury box failed if he was never brought to trial?

What liberty are you talking about? The liberty of approved leaders? It’s a failure because we voted for a bad leader?

We got the leader we voted for. The failure is in the people.

That’s not my idea of liberty at all. But you can’t say the ballot box failed, just because the people elected the worst president in the history of people in suits.