Neat, but this'll be far more usable once someone sets it up as a nice web service ala waifu2x

>I hope they don't lose their way and try to overextend their influence by silencing non-"progressive" behavior or "wrongthink"

Blizzard already do.

This is a great idea tbh, most people actually know far more classical music than they think they do - but they couldn't tell you the name of a piece or its composer for the life of them.

Man, looking back I kinda wish I'd taken DT over some other subject as one of my GCSEs. Probably music.

I don't know if it has a term of not, but it sounds like the pretty fuckin' opposite of science to me - adjusting the results to fit your wanted view instead of adjusting your view to fit the results.

Cherry-picking / confirmation bias.

I'm honestly surprised that's still going.

Or maybe just some great computers filling the hallowed halls.

Yup, both max and maya have such a 'traditional' (for lack of a better term) kind of UI - it's (for the most part) intuitive, whereas blender's just appears to be spread out all around the sides of the screen and it just feels like a mess. Even the basic aspect of interacting with the viewports is weird, why is there a crosshair, why can't I drag things around; what the hell is this weird lasso thing?

Why are you arguing completely different points then?

I believe he's arguing against the idea that Apple won't implement this device sharing because they don't want to sell only one device per family.

Because he is not replying to GP, he is replying to the parent:

> Every Apple device, from Macbooks to iPads to iPhones to Airpods is built to be a personal device. (...) Apple doesn’t want to sell one shared device to a family. They want to sell multiple devices to every family member.

Not sure why people are having problem understanding that.

Since you mentioned it, THC and tetrahydrocannabinol are the same... but different. I don't know enough about these kinds of diagrams to know what the differences are - but surely they should be the same?

It looks like "THC" and "tetrahydrocannabinol" resolve to different isomers. One has wedges (stereo information) and they have different double bond positions (the double lines).

The problem here is naming compounds - a name like "THC" is not precise enough to distinguish between these isomers. A more exact name could be "(–)-trans-Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol" (from wikipedia).

Ah, interesting - thanks. I'll be honest chemistry never really was my strong point (I much preferred the more practical aspect of physics in school) - I try to pick up what I can from creators such as codyslab, nilered, nurdrage, etc, but I guess my attention to it falls in the "interesting but not interested" category, for lack of a better term.