Messing around is how blow jobs were first invented. If we’re ever going to discover the next major sex move, we’re all going to have to do our parts and mess around a lot while we’re cleaning the starfish.

Remember:

Promote a Kim,
And the future is grim.

They are. They’re really expensive in the States, when you can find them, but almost every modern window (in Bavaria, at least) is one of these. They also come door-sized, so you can either open an outside door to walk through, or tilt it from the top to circulate air.

OP is probably just too dumb to figure out how to work them; they’re fantastic, and I wish they were common here in the States.

On the linked product page:

To be clear: that says nothing about 25.10, but there’s a lot of into on that site and the answer is probably find-able from there. It looks as if there’s fairly broad support; they claim a range of compatability with a wide variety of software.

I’m lucky to know I’m a smart dumb person, because

1. I know several, and have encountered many, truly smart people.
2. I’ve known a great many clever dumb people.
3. I know my father, and believe genetics is a strong influencer (not determiner).

I liked it through the last season I watched, which was there season after the big gap. 5, I think? I don’t watch a lot of TV, and I don’t fanboi very well; was that after he left?

This is the best hot take.

Would capillary action still work, or does it depend on surface tension? I’m thinking about superfluids. Would the water stop at covering the floor?

This.

It’s a choice.

I almost never use web apps; I do only when what I’m doing is fundamentally a web interaction: banking, for instance. Everything’s on their servers anyway.

For everything else, I (too) use shell applications. Even if I didn’t, there are tons of native GUI applications to choose from, and they are often far better experiences than SPAs or Electron apps: just look at the memory and CPU use, if you want a baseline metric.

Why do people do this? Because they fancy that they’re providing a good enough interface that works on every OS. Which is often not the case, and by the time you invest enough effort to get your SPA working well on every possible platform you could have written native apps that look and function better; and most organizations still throw in the towel and add a caveat “works best in X”, giving lie to the “web apps work everywhere.” So: laziness, or being cheap, and not really carrying about the user experience: those are the reasons people write web apps.

Do any of you know another solution to stream audio from my phone to my server

I use snapcast throughout my house and devices, but there’s no snap_server_ for Android.

I’ve been meaning to try roc, for which there is an Android client that will both play and serve.

Sonobus also claims to be many:many; I haven’t tried it either and it doesn’t look particularly active.

I don’t use UPnP or DLNA because of the security issues, so I can’t offer a suggestion about that. I thought DLNA was a pull oriented protocol - like, to send music from your phone you’d have to select and play on your computer with a DLNA client. Can you push media with DLNA?

What is that? A squirrel? Chipmunk?

Rust needs to be reduced back to ore, using a reactive, usually coke. Coke is purified coal. Coal is a fossil fuel. You can do it with charcoal, which can be made by burning wood, so it’s possible without coal, just not as efficient. This assumes you can gather the rust - it tends to break down and disperse into the environment, but if you broke up concrete to get at rusted rebar and could collect the rust, you could reduce it with charcoal.

Again, it’s a matter of scale. We mine iron and deposits because we can get large amounts in seams. If you’re trying to harvest rust and reduced it with charcoal, you’re producing iron on the scale of making knives and swords, not cars, or combine harvesters, or more rebar.

It’s a chicken-egg problem. We have been able to come as far as a have because oil, coal, and iron were just laying around on the surface, in huge quantities. Those are gone, and now you need the big tools first to get at the reserves that are left.

Any worked iron product rusts. If we’re talking about evolutionary time scales, any exposed metal - which is most of it - is going to be unusable within thousands of years, and even rebar embedded in concrete will be gone in millions. Heck, our concrete isn’t even as good as the Romans’, and even that’s going to break down in thousands of years.

We’ve stripped the raw, surface, easily accessible stuff and worked it into things that will degrade. There may be some scavenge, but nothing that can be gathered in any quantity to build an industrial society on. At best, future societies will be like medieval Japan, where iron is rare and steel precious and hoarded, only unlike Japan, there won’t be a future where they can import huge quantities of the stuff from China or Australia, because getting to the deposits now requires an industry and advanced mining equipment… which is all made out of iron they won’t have.

Gold will be interesting. Again, it’s not just laying around everywhere just under the surface. Instead, there will be isolated pockets of huge piles of the stuff. Gold doesn’t degrade, but it’s all hoarded. There’s a bunch in electronics, but in tiny, tiny amounts in each device; trying to salvage that is really hard, and yields trace amounts. No more nuggets the size of your thumb, or your fist. If a future civilization could build a global economy, then gold wouldn’t be an issue. Uranium will be hard, as will platinum, and platinum is a useful, but consumable, catalyst, and rare even today it’ll be almost unheard of in a perpetually pre-industrial post-apocalypse.

Fossil fuels are going to be the big issue, though. What’s left will simply be inaccessible, and without fossil fuels you don’t have plastics, industry, fertilizers at scale, global transportation, or the ability to work whatever metal you can find, at any scale.

Thank you. I don’t know that I ever knew that statistic about Greenland’s population. The nuke statistic tossed around - that I always heard - was something like “there are enough nukes to blow up the world a million times,” with is a silly, sloppy metric that doesn’t day anything about the actual warhead count. Are those Tsar Bombas, or Fat Man? How many megatons are required to “blow up the world” once? But that graph is interesting; it’s even more interesting that there population of Greenland and the number of (viable) warheads on the planet have been so relatively close.

I mean, if that’s how you get your rocks off, you do you. Personally, I’ve never found vitriol to be in any way healthy.

The biggest challenge for future intelligent species, and the reason why I know we’re the first technological ones, is that we’ve mined all of the easily accessible metals and all of the easily accessible fossil fuels. Any intelligence arriving after us is going to have to make a civilization without iron, precious metals, oil, or coal. Unless you get into some sci-fi bio-engineering scenario where they’re growing high tech, they’re doomed to being stuck in the stone age. It’s going to be hard for them to escape the planet, defend it from asteroids, deal with super-volcanoes, build advanced calculating devices… all of the stuff we would already find challenging even with all the resources we have.

Millions of years are not enough to replenish the fossil fuels, and the sun is going to start expanding before enough life lives and dies to produce any useful amount of biomass. Before then, more metals will become accessible, in places, but good luck working it at industrial levels without fossil fuels.

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but we’ve given a severe handicap to advancing beyond a rudimentary agrarian society for any successor species; even if it’s our own descendants re-arrising from a post-apocalyptic environmental catastrophe.

“You’re not obligated to respond”, combined with “nobody else cares about your quarrel but you and that idiot” are the two maxims that make my social media experience better. Sometimes I feel like arguing, but if I think someone’s arguing in bad faith, I just block 'em.

Life’s too short to spend time interacting with morons.

But why would you have thought that? There have always (for recorded history values of “always”) been people in Greenland; there have only relatively recently been nuclear warheads. So - regardless of truth - why would you have assumed that there must have at some point been more warheads in the world than people in Greenland? That doesn’t seem like an obvious assumption, to me. What made that occur to you?