I have no actual stake in this discussion beyond the fun of arguing. I could continue, for example by pointing out that in the article about “Encyclopedia” you linked it says

There are some broad differences between encyclopedias and dictionaries. Most noticeably, encyclopedia articles are longer, fuller and more thorough than entries in most general-purpose dictionaries.[3][20] There are differences in content as well. Generally speaking, dictionaries provide linguistic information about words themselves, while encyclopedias focus more on the things for which those words stand.[6][7][8][9]

But I get the feeling you’re taking this too seriously, and I’m not enjoying this anymore. So let’s end it here, I hope you have a good day!

Assholes

Just another day for the genocide song contest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otjl4rhnLPw

What studying natural sciences does to a mf (I am intimately familiar with the Greek alphabet, despite not speaking a word of Greek)

What you’re calling “a physical definition with sources” would be more accurately as an online encyclopedia entry.

Alright, sure. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lishitz: Course on Theoretical Physics 5: Statistical Physics, English translation 1951, p. 467ff, subchapter Wetting.

This is established science. I just thought Wikipedia might be an easier introduction.

Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.

as in the dictionary example from the source you i guess now regret linking, water is wet.

What? I legit don’t understand what you’re trying to say. You linked a user-curated dictionary and pretended that’s the be-all, end-all of definitions. I can do that as well, even if PhilosophyTube is going to beat my ass for it:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wet

But I was talking about the scientific background of the term. This is not some hyper-specific term, but how it’s used in almost* all of science.

*(The other somewhat common use is as a synonym of “humid”, often used in climate amd atmospheric science. Which is irrelevant in the discussion “is water wet”)

Basically, the process of making something wet requires a liquid (usually water) to actually stick to it, through intermolecular forces. That’s slightly more narrow a requirement than the “needs to touch water” that’s commonly thrown around. A lotus flower or water repellent jacket doesn’t get wet, even if you spray water on it, the droplets don’t actually stick to the surface.

Now, water molecules stick to each other as well, that’s called surface tension. But wetness, at least in physics, is defined at an interface between two mediums, a liquid and a solid, or two liquids that don’t mix

Synonym: wetting

This might just be me, but I’ll take a physical definition with sources over a dictionary example sentence. But the meaning of words is fluid, like how “literally” now also means “figuratively”, so if you don’t, that’s okay. In scientific literature, where precise language matters, “wet”, “wetness”, “wettability” and “wetting” all refer to the process I’ve linked, however.

Counter source 2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

Wetting is the ability of a liquid to displace gas to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together.[1] These interactions occur in the presence of either a gaseous phase or another liquid phase not miscible with the wetting liquid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

That is the actual definition tho

Arguing can be fun, and some of us just want a break from The Horrors™ every once in a while. Arguing a joke sounds like a nice, harmless change of pace

This is physically correct

Wetting is an actual physical process that occurs between a liquid and a solid, or two unmixable liquids:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

Wetting is the ability of a liquid to displace gas to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together.[1] These interactions occur in the presence of either a gaseous phase or another liquid phase not miscible with the wetting liquid.

Shame on you for calling a deeply historic cultural dance “yelling like an animal”. Fucking colonizer mindset is still alive and well, it seems

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OEF3JD-jYo

Tree(3) is craaazyyy

Why would anyone willingly use aluminium pots? Besides the demonstrated problem, it has also been linked to Alzheimer’s and other health risks. No way I’m putting something acidic in there or heating it up

A succulent Chinese meal?

Okay, then answer me this: if I say “Russia is acting like Nazi Germany”, is it Volksverhetzung? Would it get removed on feddit.org citing German law?

If not, why? Where in law does Israel get special treatment? Or is it policy after all?

A simple comparison between a state and Nazi Germany does not fall under that. Or else, how many people have been charged for comparing Russia to the Nazis since they invaded Ukraine? This is only applicable if you hold the position that Israel and the Jewish people are synonymous, which is not true, it is anchored nowhere in German law, and is the very point this post addresses: the IHRA working definition is wholly unsuited for political or judicial dealings.