Stamets@lemmy.world to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 1 year agoWhich got wrecked worse by Lake Superior? Tom Fitton or the Edmund Fitzgerald?lemmy.worldimagemessage-square209fedilinkarrow-up11.27K
arrow-up11.27KimageWhich got wrecked worse by Lake Superior? Tom Fitton or the Edmund Fitzgerald?lemmy.worldStamets@lemmy.world to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 1 year agomessage-square209fedilink
minus-squaredon@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up8·1 year 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 year 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 year 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…