Topic of this thread: 1000 formal complaints against Eileen Cannon, as part of a concerted effort.

News about the right:

Trump blasts his trial judges. Then his fans call for violence.

After Trump’s guilty verdict, threats and attempts to dox Trump jurors proliferate online

Death threats to judge and jury: Inside the Maga meltdown after Trump verdict

And in the other cases:

Georgia steps up investigation into threats against Trump grand jurors

Georgia investigates threats against Trump jury (BBC)

E. Jean Carroll testifies she lives in fear of threats from Trump supporters

@toboggonablaze is essentially correct, but let me try explain it in a slightly different way.

Lasers do a bunch of things to basically shoot a stream of photons at something. There's basically two ways you can affect how much energy comes out of a laser, you can make the stream denser (more photons per second) - called intensity, or you can increase the energy in each photon.

The weird part about photon energy is that higher energy photons are of a different "color", where red is lower than green, is lower than blue, is lower than gamma rays, etc.

So changing the color of a laser already means you've changed how much energy it can output.

Then there's another part of your question: how lead gets heated up. Different materials respond differently to different types/wavelengths of light, an example you might be familiar with is that glass panes let through visible light, but not the heat from the sun, or that water also is see through, but can easily be microwaved (by microwaves - low frequency light).

Basically, a material can be more or less "translucent" in certain frequencies. I'd like to look lead up for you, but Google isn't cooperating today. But basically, there are frequencies that lead will be more and less susceptible to.

That's probably not what you meant with the question, but if that's the application you want to use the laser for, you might want to take it into consideration.

So, in summary: color is energy, intensity is energy, you can change both independently, so your question doesn't quite make sense.

Also, different targets will heat differently, also not making it a fair comparison.

Not OP, but couldn't "what about other, bigger problems?" be construed as whataboutism?

Although personally I'd put it closer to ridicule, which I also believe is John Greene's intent (judging from how he talks about the issue in other social media).

I'm definitely over 10 years old

Is it? That bit seems the least outlandish, I'd guess that happens regularly to people in power and/or with a litigious streak.

Lol

To the GOP there are no allies, only chumps and marks.

That... is not at all what I'm saying, nor implying.

I'm actually agreeing with you that the managerial system should not have more power and/or money, but if that class wants more labor from you it is only fair they cede some power and money.

I'm saying that not compensating someone for more complex labor, to benefit an owner, is never worker friendly.

You can compensate in other ways than money and benefits, and you can remove the exploitative/segregating systems by paying everyone enough and not extracting value (as owner profits do), but both require collective action.

And other things as well, like vision, plan and funding. But without collective action, the only incentive is for the owning class to squeeze you tighter and manipulate you to blame the worker class.

There's a lot of propaganda coming all directions, as parties are interested in taking control of the narrative.

There are still a lot of candidate explanations, but tensions in Russia are high enough that the truth might not matter.

Putin has done similar things against Russia, there's currently an armed insurgency going in Russia with independent groups acting, Russian civil discontent after the fake elections and increasing tolls of war is high and fresh.

Ukraine hasn't done anything like this previously and has gone to great lengths to minimise civilian casualties, but have also had some rogue plans/actors.

It could be Israel trying to keep eyes off of their conflict, they've shown to care little for the lives of non-citizens.

It could be a big brain play by a western state trying to provoke NATO involvement, or clumsily fan unrest.

It could also be unconnected to the war with IS/China/post-soviet states stirring trouble for their own gains.

We don't know yet, but Russia wants to pin it on Ukraine no matter who did it. Ukraine needs it not to be state affiliated, and so must deny.

I've had Samsung androids for over a decade, and they've had smoother animation and less loading lag since about iPhone 4 (which I've used for work in the same period). They've also had comparable feedback on presses.

Then again, the HTC androids I've tried occasionally have been real bad, so I get the question.

You shouldn't have to rely on the words of Internet random though, go try one out.

Bah, the universe is too messy and disordered to be worth the trouble

This is actually atheist. Atheism as a label pertains only to the question of "Are you convinced a god exists", if the answer is no - you're atheist.

If you are convinced of a god, but feel your reasons are bad, that's where agnostic would apply.

The history of the term "agnostic" is as a deliberate way to make leaving religion harder, and you continuing to use it incorrectly perpetuates the stigma and social costs.

You can help people in horrible, abusive, situations, and join millions of us in doing so, just by using the term atheist correctly. Incidentally, being more precise in your language is also super useful, and gives loads of new and better ways to convey information.