Stamets@lemmy.world to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 1 month agoWhich got wrecked worse by Lake Superior? Tom Fitton or the Edmund Fitzgerald?lemmy.worldimagemessage-square211fedilinkarrow-up11.27Karrow-down124
arrow-up11.24Karrow-down1imageWhich got wrecked worse by Lake Superior? Tom Fitton or the Edmund Fitzgerald?lemmy.worldStamets@lemmy.world to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 1 month agomessage-square211fedilink
minus-squaredon@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up8arrow-down2·1 month agoThere’s an argument that wetness is a sensation that occurs when water comes into contact with a solid surface. Therefore, while water can make other things wet, it is not considered wet on its own.
minus-squareyetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up8·1 month agoI’d argue there exist extremely viscous liquids which would be considered wet when in contact with water. It seems arbitrary to exclude liquids from being wet.
minus-squareBlooper@lemmynsfw.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 month agoAnd yet I’m struggling to think of one…
There’s an argument that wetness is a sensation that occurs when water comes into contact with a solid surface. Therefore, while water can make other things wet, it is not considered wet on its own.
I’d argue there exist extremely viscous liquids which would be considered wet when in contact with water.
It seems arbitrary to exclude liquids from being wet.
And yet I’m struggling to think of one…