/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14490119
>why does she think that 2+2=4 excludes POC?
About two years ago, some troll started saying that trannies being women was like saying 2+2=4. In response:
>some trannies on twitter started literally defending 2+2!=4
>other twitter users repeated this because they will repeat literally anything
>the emphasis gradually shifted from trannies to racism, because hey why not?
until as you see today, ordinary people will literally deny 2+2=4 in order to appear ideologically pure
>which is,by the way, a verbatim plot point from 1984, part of the interrogation/brainwashing procedure is to make you openly doubt that 2 and 2 adds to 4

>>11948778
No, racism is a form of collectivist thinking not dissimilar to other low IQ populations like sports fans, communists, political or religious extremists.

A smart person realizes these are spooks. The individual is what matters.

I’ve read online that ferrocium (conventional lighter flint rods) is highly flammable as is ‘urinal cakes’, (naphthalene, I think). So if I mortar and pestled either of those, it may shoot. I just don’t know how powerful they would be.
>>11447915
I’ve tried that. Trouble is, it’s very tedious shaving match heads off.
>>11447959
Well a .50 caliber lead ball or cylinder won’t go far if it’s not sealed tight in the barrel; it would drop out the front and the gun would turn into a 2 metre long scorching dragon’s breath flamethrower (this has happened before) because I use finely powdered sparklers (which have iron filing in them) as I am yet to make BP or NC.
Yes, I agree. Dust explosions won’t work in a confined space, but on an intriguing note, thermobarric weapons utilise dust explosions to literally ignite the air.
>>11447983
I think solids with water would have a harder time burning, like flour, id est.
Even iron filings work, albeit slowly. I’m guessing I have a narrow range of ‘good’ powders that ‘deflagrate’ forcefully fast but don’t ‘detonate’ like a grenade.