GPL3 has a clause specifically to deal with this situation [1]

13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.

So you can use GPL3 code in AGPL projects. The GPL3 portion of the code will still be licensed under GPL3, but the network interaction clause of the AGPL3 will apply to the project as a whole, including the GPL3 parts.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

So, yes. I’m well aware of that. But thank you (and I mean that sincerely!) for pointing that out. I’ll explain…

But first, as an aside, I’ll say I’m not a fan of snappy when it’s also grossly imprecise (or worse, dishonest). There’s too much dishonesty and “spin” in politics as it is, and we could do with less. But I digress…

Anyway, while you’re correct about it being shorthand, I submit that there are people that don’t follow gun-related politics, but have heard “regulate guns like the cars” and take it to mean exactly that because they’re unaware that it has a deeper meaning.

In fact, there are 2 (unrelated) people in my friend group that believed this, until I told them basically what I wrote above. I didn’t do it as some sort of gotcha - they’re my friends - I want them to be able to make informed decisions based on facts. And they’re not dumb people - they were just ignorant of the issue and parroting said snappy phrase without understanding it was shorthand for something different. Now they have a better understanding of the topic, and a better understanding of what kind of regulations they do and don’t support. I don’t agree with their positions 100%, but that’s fine. My goal was to educate and get them thinking about it, not convert.

So, with respect, I intend to ignore your suggestion about how to respond to this phrase in the future, for as long as it keeps being used in the same way without any additional explanation. Not because I’m trying to be an agitator (I’m not), but because I think this discourse is helpful for bystanders that aren’t steeped in this stuff, so that they don’t misunderstand.

After all, if there were 2 people in my little friend group that didn’t understand the phrase as shorthand, there are probably plenty more out there.

And to that end, thanks again for helping by posting the missing “additional explanation”.

Maybe you’re right. I get all confused when it’s not in Möbius order.

You may think you want guns regulated like cars, probably because you heard it somewhere and thought, “yeah, that seems reasonable”.

But if you stop and think about how cars are actually regulated vs how guns are actually regulated, I think you’ll maybe see that it’s perhaps not so reasonable an idea after all.

First and foremost, guns are already regulated in significant ways that cars are not. For example, requiring background checks, prohibiting purchasing/owning by particular groups of people (e.g., felons, drug addicts, domestic abusers), and numerous places where you’re not allowed to take them.

None of those restrictions apply to cars (though maybe they should), so “regulating guns like cars” implies rolling back those restrictions on guns. (Otherwise it wouldn’t actually be “like cars”, would it?)

Second, a lot of restrictions on cars are for common use, and the minute you fall outside of that, many of those regulations don’t apply.

For example, in many (maybe the majority of? Not sure) states, the whole license/registration/insurance requirement only applies to vehicles that are operated on public roads (of course, your bank will require insurance if you finance, regardless).

So a farmer could buy a brand new pickup for cash, sign an affidavit saying it won’t be operated on public roads, have it delivered by flatbed truck to his farm, then his 14 year old kid could drive it around all day with no license, registration, or insurance, and everything is (potentially, depending on the state) completely within the law as long as it stays on the farm.

There are parallels that can be drawn with gun purchases for use on private property, but hopefully you get my point by now.

So for sure, if you want more/better gun regulations, then by all means, advocate for that. But please don’t suggest that we regulate guns like we do cars because that’s a terrible idea.

To expand on this… Part of what happens to the nectar inside the bee’s honey crop is the addition of various enzymes (IIRC invertase is one. I don’t recall any of the others) that modify the sugars and other compounds in the nectar.

So nectar goes in, the result of nectar + enzymes comes out, then it’s dried until the moisture content is low enough (~18% is what I was told as a beekeeper. Who knows how the bees measure it…)

Not to be all “Well ackchyually” but most (maybe all?) of the moisture reduction happens after the nectar has been stored in the comb, but before it has been capped with wax for storage. So the bottom two panels are out of order.

Also, if anyone cares, the term for the mouth-to-mouth passing of the nectar is trophallaxis.

We used to feed our cats almost entirely dry food, with wet food as an occasional treat (no real schedule for wet, just every now and then).

But over the years we’ve had a number of cats that had health issues that were mitigated by switching to mostly wet food.

So now it’s reversed- almost entirely wet food with dry food occasionally (every couple of days or so). At least, for our indoor cats.

We also take care of a feral colony (many of which we’ve TNR’d), and those cats get dry food for logistical and cost reasons.

100%. They’ve just guaranteed that the sous vide unit that I have now is the last Anova product I will ever buy.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/810.011

Looks like no more than 500ft apart, plus corners. With exceptions for fenced or cultivated land, and plots less than 5 acres with a dwelling.