K‮ly‬e @khird@qoto.org

@sunflowerinrain yes, as long as it has a melody that could be sung. "The Chicken Dance is an oom-pah song," Wikipedia says, and that follows common usage here.

@mpjgregoire It's not how taxes work, exactly. There's a per-child benefit in the UK for lower- and middle-income families, of which you got 100% if your income was less than £50k, 0% above £60k, and in between it was linearly prorated. The IFS credited in the image footer appears to be an anti-tax org; I think they're the ones that characterize the reduction in benefit as "effectively a tax" and published the modified dataset with that "baked into" the tax rates. In April 2024 the thresholds were changed to £60k min, £80k max, so the graphic dates from before the change; today it would be twice as wide, half as high, and shifted rightward.

@Tutanota the one between my ears

@trinsec I rescued a textbook from a library that was being dissolved, dated 1953 by a professor at the library's host university. It was "intended for use primarily for students who seek an understanding of physical phenomena and the use of the scientific method as a part of a liberal arts education."

In the chapter Problems of Interplanetary Travel, it has the following to say about propulsion systems: "The maximum energy obtainable from alcohol is its energy of combustion which is 1.37*10^10 ergs/gram. This figure is typical. Although there are other fuels which have a larger energy of combustion, none of these differs from that of alcohol by a factor as much as 10 fold. This figure indicates that we have to start with several grams in order to get one away from the Earth. At its very best, therefore, the energy of chemical combustion is obviously inadequate for space rocketry. It is equally obvious that we must learn how to use nuclear energy for the propulsion of rockets."

With the benefit of hindsight, and the score of successful rocket launches standing at "chemical combustion: a whole lot, nuclear energy: nil", I always thought that paragraph was pretty funny.

@chris_spackman It's in the text of the EO (which I read carefully when it came out). The 14th Amendment applies to people born in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Historically that's been read to exclude groups like diplomats, who are an obvious case, being more or less completely immune from the host country's jurisdiction. The EO argues that the named categories of people are not completely "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, because the countries of their nationality still govern many aspects of their lives. So it comes down to a question of interpretation of that phrase - just because the executive branch says the amendment means X doesn't make it so, and I think that's part of what the courts are being asked to rule on.

@tantramar Looks like a Boeing going by the tail shape, but I'm not good enough at the hobby to tell you what model without a scale reference. Just based on the airport you reported, gonna guess 737 family (and a relatively recent model, looking at the engine proportions and winglet shape) - Columbus is an order of magnitude more populous than Moncton, and we rarely get anything bigger than a 737 or A321. I'd expect to find 777s serving long intercontinental flights and/or connecting major cities.

@tezoatlipoca @paul it's a month and two days - the letter says the cancellation will be effective from the thirtieth of July, not of June. Hope that's enough time to sort them out!

@petersuber see also: posting a song to youtube with the video description saying something like, "I do not own this song. All rights belong to their respective owners - NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED"