If you thought this was promoting suicide, you either don’t understand the connotation of a guillotine, or have been living under a rock for… <checks notes> the last hundred years

Am a chemist in your group. I read it the plumber way too. Took me several seconds to get it.

As a leftist chemistry teacher, I read it as “having attained union”, rather than “not ionized”, so YMMV with this heuristic

ETA: (also, yeah, I have excellent job security until all public schools are abolished in the US)

Since an observer traveling through space at the speed of light experiences no time from the beginning of their journey until they decelerate (since their 4-velocity vector has non-zero values only in the 3 dimensions of space), photons don’t just arrive precisely when they mean to, from the moment they are emitted, they have already arrived.

Yes, I added shiny metaphors, explications and implications, because the subtext of the original post was apparently utterly lost on both of them.

Why use many word when few do trick? Because some people don’t understand the few words.

It literally DOES start with that! That’s the top level comment, word-for-word, which at least two people were too thick to understand. So yes, I gave a longer explanation, like I apparently must also provide to you.

You’re right! You know what I could have said instead?

Who could have guessed that the rich white South African would turn out to be a white supremacist?

See the flaw in using too few words?

I mean, you could think of it like rain. Imagine that you have a bucket, and it’s out in a rainstorm. There’s a plant in the bucket with some soil, and a tiny little pinhole in the bottom that lets out a couple of drips at any given time. Now, let’s say you want to make sure that the plant gets just the right amount of water, so that it still gets the right amount of rain, but it doesn’t flood and overpower the leak out of the bottom. What’s the simplest solution? Figure out how quickly the rain is coming down, and then cover part of the bucket so you only get the right amount of rain, right? Now imagine that some hooligan comes by and decides to muck with your bucket, because for the slightest moment, it will bring their sad, shriveled heart some measure of joy to make your life worse. They decide to move the cover. Maybe they take it off entirely, and that would guarantee the plant would die, but they’re a sick, evil little gobshite, so they only move it off when you’re out for the day, and then they put it back when you get home. When you go into your house, they take off the cover again, letting in the full torrent of rain. You look at the bucket, and wonder why the plant is getting flooded. Why isn’t the cover working anymore? Because it’s only there to help some of the time, and the damage that’s done while it’s missing is piling up faster than the drain can sink it away

The plant is the entire world ecosystem, you are the careful equilibrium that has been in place since the Oligocene, the rain is sunlight, the cover is arctic ice, the little gobshite is the corporations and individuals that have decided that their personal aggrandizement is the only thing that matters.

You want real trouble? Now imagine that when the level of water reaches high enough in the bucket, the cover doesn’t even fit anymore. That’s what happens when the permafrost and methane hydrates release their payloads in the coming years. That way lies the Permian mass extinction.

The problem here is that the snow will melt at some point. The reason this is happening is because the sea ice that existed year-round until now is nearly gone each summer. The lack of consistent ice covering means that there is a greater amount of energy being absorbed by the ocean, perhaps not year-round, but that it’s happening so much more in the summer is sufficient to utterly outweigh any amount of temporary snowfall anywhere else on the globe.

Sorry use many words. I see question, think want answer. Am wrong?

I am! Because the fact that his family, the figures he looked up to, and he himself, all directly benefitted from the system of apartheid that was a specific integral part of the system in South Africa from which they derived their gains?

That is relevant in the same way that saying “he was born in Alabama in the 1850s, is the son of a slaveholding knight of the golden circle, and owns a lot of bedsheets with eyeholes cut in them” would be a valid set of concerns, all of which can be used as valid identifiers that, why, yes, these add together to paint a picture of the culture that this hypothetical man is most likely to espouse. So when he “accidentally” lights a cross on fire while holding a rope with a slipknot in his offhand, do we really think that the tied slipknot at the end of his rope is to lead cattle, or is it more likely that he intends to lynch someone?