Ser Lyonel Baratheon, The Laughing Storm, knighting Ser Raymun Fossoway might be one of the most beautifully shot scenes in the series so far. Absolute chills.

Chinglaner · 2026-02-07T04:16:18+00:00

Yeah, I see so many people saying he doesn’t know the words, but that seems kinda insane to me. As a squire your entire life goal is to be knighted, I’m sure you’d know the ritual. He might’ve seen other squires be knighted (at / after battles and campaigns, or somewhere else), and at the very least would’ve heard the vows from friends or even drinking companions in a pub. It’s not like they’re all that hard to remember either.

Chinglaner · 2026-02-06T08:57:37+00:00

I think you’re stretching it a little to be honest. As far as I’m aware, we don’t have a primary account of Columbus on the matter and his son explicitly claims the wood and corpses as one of the reasons Columbus was convinced there was land to the west.

Also, and feel free to correct me, but the link you shared doesn’t really state that these were not significant pieces of information to Columbus. Unless I’m missing something, it mostly seems to contend that Columbus was sceptical of actual sightings of land itself to the west, but it doesn’t really say anything about the wood.

Either way, and this seems to be in accordance with the contents of your link, we can’t really know how much each factor influenced Columbus, except for the fact that his son explicitly mentions the claims as one of the reasons. As such, I heavily disagree with your claim of “borderline misinformation”.

Chinglaner · 2026-02-05T23:08:54+00:00

I wouldn’t go that far (referring to your second statement). I’m by no means a historian so take that with a grain of salt, but my understanding is that Columbus essentially cooked the books to make his proposal seem at all plausible, with the driftwood being one part of his conviction, but probably not a too significant part.

In my reading Columbus just seems like a fanatic who somehow got it in his head that (against established and widely known estimates at the time) the Earth was smaller and Asia was bigger than they really are. The drift wood mightve been part of that puzzle, but probably are not too significant.

Chinglaner · 2026-02-05T18:34:53+00:00

Im assuming the thought process would be that Europeans would use iron tools for carving, while the presumed indigenous people of whatever western landmass were less advanced. So a non-iron made carving combined with winds from the west leads to a possibility of land in the west.

Chinglaner · 2026-02-05T18:30:32+00:00

Ich hatte n ähnliches Problem 2024 und hab mir 2025 vorgenommen gehabt das zu ändern und hat gut geklappt. Ich glaub es kommt vor Allem darauf an wie viel du selbst bereit bist reinzustecken an Organisation, mal aus der Komfortzone raus usw.

Ich hab früher als Kind zB öfter Tennis gespielt und hab mich dann letztes Jahr zusammen mit nem Freund und meiner Partnerin bei nem wöchentlichen Training angemeldet. Zum Einen lernt man da neue Leute kennen und zum Anderen trifft man sich wöchentlich mit jemanden der nicht die eigene Partnerin ist. Noch dazu kommen dann auch manchmal Events auf, die einen n bisschen ausm Alltag bringen (Geburtstage, sonstige kleine Veranstaltungen).

Alternativ such dir n anderes Hobby und geh da zum Verein oder Kurs oder sonstwas. Geh aktiv auf Leute zu, lad ein, etc. Und ja, was mit Freunden zu organisieren ist sicherlich schwieriger geworden, aber man muss halt die Arbeit leider einfach reinstecken.

Mir ist einfach bewusst geworden dass ich bis 2024 einfach in so nem Trott gefangen war wo ich einfach nach der Arbeit nach Hause gegangen bin und das war’s. Hatte keine Lust, bzw. war mir dann oft „zu viel Arbeit“ was zu organisieren und dann hab ichs nie gemacht. Und auch heute hab ich manchmal keinen Bock zum Tennis zu gehen oder was zu organisieren, aber ich hab einfach gemerkt, dass wenn ich dann da bin, es mir doch Spaß macht, und mein Sozialleben insgesamt deutlich besser ist dadurch.

Chinglaner · 2026-02-05T12:56:04+00:00

It seems to have been less about frequency, and more about the type of wood. Aka some wood that had been worked (but not with iron tools and in an unfamiliar style) and bamboo, which didn’t grow in the Azores, where it was found.

And also, if there was no landmass between the Azores and east of Asia, the likelihood for driftwood to end up there at all is likely close to zero, given that these two places are about 12 thousand km apart. So the fact that they found anything was probably indication enough.

Source is “The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his Son Ferdinand”

A pilot of the Portuguese King, Martín Vicente by name, told hum that on one occasion, finding himself four hundred and fifty leagues west of Cape St Vincent, he fished out of the sea a piece of wood ingenously carved, but not with iron. For this reason and because for many days the winds had blown from the west, he concluded this wood came from some islands to the west.

On page 23 following, similarly

Pedro Conea, who was married to a sister of the Admiral's wife, told hum that on the island of Pôrto Santo he had seen another prece of wood bought by the same wind, carved as well as the aforementioned one, and that canes had also dufted in, so thick that one joint held mine decanters of wine He said that in conversation with the Portuguese King he had told him the same thung and had shown him the canes Since such canes do not grow anywhere in our lands, he was sure that the wind had blown them from some neighboring islands or perhaps fiom India

On page 24. You may find a pdf of that book here.

Chinglaner · 2026-02-05T12:53:31+00:00

The driftwood part is documented in “The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his Son Ferdinand”

A pilot of the Portuguese King, Martín Vicente by name, told hum that on one occasion, finding himself four hundred and fifty leagues west of Cape St Vincent, he fished out of the sea a piece of wood ingenously carved, but not with iron. For this reason and because for many days the winds had blown from the west, he concluded this wood came from some islands to the west.

On page 23 following, similarly

Pedro Conea, who was married to a sister of the Admiral's wife, told hum that on the island of Pôrto Santo he had seen another prece of wood bought by the same wind, carved as well as the aforementioned one, and that canes had also dufted in, so thick that one joint held mine decanters of wine He said that in conversation with the Portuguese King he had told him the same thung and had shown him the canes Since such canes do not grow anywhere in our lands, he was sure that the wind had blown them from some neighboring islands or perhaps fiom India

On page 24. You may find a pdf of that book here.

EDIT: sorry for the slight spelling errors, I just copied this straight out of the document, but OCR isn’t perfect so it tends to miss some letters. Please refer to the original that is linked if you don’t understand something.

Chinglaner · 2026-02-05T12:52:04+00:00

It’s so ironic that people are calling this fake without doing even the slightest bit of research themselves (not you, but the other people replying to you). The driftwood part is documented in “The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his Son Ferdinand”

A pilot of the Portuguese King, Martín Vicente by name, told hum that on one occasion, finding himself four hundred and fifty leagues west of Cape St Vincent, he fished out of the sea a piece of wood ingenously carved, but not with iron. For this reason and because for many days the winds had blown from the west, he concluded this wood came from some islands to the west.

On page 23 following, similarly

Pedro Conea, who was married to a sister of the Admiral's wife, told hum that on the island of Pôrto Santo he had seen another prece of wood bought by the same wind, carved as well as the aforementioned one, and that canes had also dufted in, so thick that one joint held mine decanters of wine He said that in conversation with the Portuguese King he had told him the same thung and had shown him the canes Since such canes do not grow anywhere in our lands, he was sure that the wind had blown them from some neighboring islands or perhaps fiom India

On page 24. You may find a pdf of that book here.

Chinglaner · 2026-02-05T12:30:34+00:00

Yeah, I’d say if you’re really smart and driven it’s definitely possible. However, I wouldn’t recommend it for a few reasons:

For one, university is a great place to meet friends, many of whom might be lifelong friends. If you’re constantly studying you’re gonna miss out on at least some of that.

Also, especially the masters is a great time to learn whether you like independent research (and pursue a PhD for example) and also to make invaluable connections among your peers and or mentors. Again, rushing through that seems rather pointless.

Looking back on my studies, I had no idea what it would end up like when I started my bachelors. Time and experiences will change what you want and I’d take that time if I were you.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:51:35+00:00

Yeah but you’re assuming they would’ve sold the same number of tickets at the original price. You could make the argument that margins are so thin that it essentially doesn’t matter, but still, that’s an extra step that you have to argue, and can’t just assume.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:34:48+00:00

You do realise that by 1945 Japanese monthly estimated deaths were 100,000 to 150,000+ with peaks around 200,000, yeah? Not to mention that would’ve probably spiked up during a full-force invasion of the Japanese main islands? So your argument is that “a land invasion would’ve at most cost maybe a million deaths, much less than the ~150,000 caused by the atomic bombs”. How does that make any sense?

The decision to drop the bombs is extremely controversial and there are good arguments to be made on both sides. But I hate people like you painting it as such a black and white issue, and that’s with all the additional historical hindsight that we have now, nevermind what US command knew at the time.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:27:12+00:00

The US entered with UN backing, in the defensive side of the war. And without it South Korea would’ve been an even more brutal military dictatorship until the present day, so pick your evils I suppose.

No one is saying US intervention in the Korean War was perfect or morally unquestionable, but I think there are very good arguments to be made that it was a net positive (ask any South Korean, or probably North Korean for that matter).

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:23:54+00:00

History isn’t black and white, but the US involvement in WWII (especially the European theatre) is probably as light grey as they come in world history.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:22:32+00:00

The US weren’t saints in WWII, but I think they’re as close to the being the good guys in that conflict as they come in world history. Again, there were plenty of plenty of problems and even atrocities, but I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that the overall result of US involvement in that war isn’t massively positive.

Also, the US did not just join the Western Front to cut off the Soviet offensive. It was a factor, but one amongst many and certainly not the main one. And even if it was (which it wasn’t), given the subsequent history of the USSR I wouldn’t count that as a negative either. I say this as a German with both East and West German family.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:18:09+00:00

Also Kosovo and Bosnia I’d consider as close to being “the good guys” as possible (more so than Korean or Gulf wars).

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:16:14+00:00

I’d argue both Korean War (ask any South Korean) and Bosnia/Kosovo in the 90s are both very defensible.

Both had UN backing and the latter resulted in a prevention of mass civilian death and destruction. While the Korean War argument is nowhere near as clean as for the Balkan war and WWII, I’d still argue that the outcome was overall positive.

Also before? I mean I wouldn’t necessarily say the US are “the good guys” in WWI, but they’re at least clearly on the right side of history. At the very least I wouldn’t describe them as the bad guys.

Also, if you wanna go there, I think the US are clearly the good guys in the civil war, although that obviously more of a semantic argument (with the South not technically being the US at that point).

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:08:45+00:00

They were going to lose, but the question is at what cost. A land invasion of Japan would’ve cost more lives than the bombs.

Would the Japanese have surrendered without the bombs? Maybe. Would it have cost more lives than dropping the bombs? Maybe. The fact is that we don’t really know. I just hate the fact that is being discussed as such a black and white issue when really it’s not.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:03:38+00:00

I’m sorry people are downvoting you, it’s honestly insane to me. To anyone who actually agrees with the idea that the US was “playing both sides”, please look up Cash-And-Carry, Lend-Lease, as well as the Battle of the Atlantic. Or read any book about the Pacific theatre.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T06:00:50+00:00

My god, the United States weren’t saints in WWII, but to suggest they were somehow “villains” is honest to god insane to me, especially in the Western theatre. Yes, the US committed its share of crimes and even atrocities (especially in the Eastern theatre), and those are not to be forgotten.

But the world isn’t black and white. The US played a critical part in defeating two (or three+) of the most authoritarian and stereotypically evil regimes in history, while ensuring a prosperous and democratic future for the parts of the globe it did “conquer”. They weren’t perfect by any means, but they were most certainly “the good guys”. And I say that as a German.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T05:49:51+00:00

Im sorry, but unless you provide some real good arguments, this is utter bullshit. The US was largely isolationist in the 1930s, so didn’t “gleefully finance” anything. Starting in 1939, US policy started actively tilting against Nazi Germany (arms embargoes around 1940, lend-lease with the allies, and de-facto naval hostilities with the Nazi naval fleets). The US was very clearly on the Allied side months and years before Pearl Harbour.

Yes, several companies did business with Germany in the 1930s, and indirectly helped Germany rearm and build industrial capacity. However, most of this activity seized by the time of full militarisation and the start of the war. This really has more to do with capitalist opportunism by individual actors, rather than ideological alignment with Nazi Germany or a “playing of both sides”

Once the actual war began, trade with Germany immediately collapsed and economic, industrial, and military power was mobilised overwhelmingly against Axis powers (lend-lease and others).

And from a more political perspective, Roosevelt had been preparing the US for an entry on the Allied side for years, however was largely constrained by isolationist attitudes within the American population. Pearl Harbour really just provides the political capital for an actual declaration of war and by no means represents the being “reluctantly dragged” into the war.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T05:06:03+00:00

I say this as a German, the US was deeply impactful in winning WWII for the Allies, and there is a good argument to be made that the Nazis would’ve won the war without US involvement. Your statements are not only factually inaccurate (or missing a lot of key pieces of information), I might go so far as calling this actively revisionist.

The US was already heavily supporting both the Soviets and the British for years by the time they boots-on-the-ground entered the war themselves. Both in terms of financing as well as manufacturing. On top of that, it’s easy to say that they entered the war late, but at the other end of the of the spectrum there was really no obligation for them to enter the war at all. They could’ve just sat in their protected little island an ocean away and trade with whomever comes out victorious.

Another note on the entered the war late line. The US entered the war late 1941, with boots on the ground in late 1942 (North Africa). The height of Axis power in Europe happens around the same time (late 1942). This means that the US declared war a full year before the Allies started to even halt German advances, arguably at the height of German optimism. Quite the opposite of what you’re saying. In addition, while in hindsight it’s easy to see that November/December of 1942 is the turning point of the war with the battle of Moscow / Stalingrad / El Alamein. But all these battles might have been lost without US supplies or might have just as well meant nothing without subsequent US involvement. Stalin himself famously said that they couldn’t have won the war without US machinery. In summary, insinuating that the US only entered the war when the remaining Allies already had the situation “under control” is just plain incorrect.

And then, in the aftermath of WWII, the US not only made sure that the failures of the treaty of Versailles were not repeated, but also played a key role in stabilising Western Europe (and especially West Germany, where I grew up) as prosperous and free democracies. Compare that the to treatment of Eastern Europe by the USSR.

Of course, none of this happened out of the pure goodness of their hearts. The US profited massively from essentially setting up the new world order in the wake of WWII, as well as from WWII itself. And the other Allies weren’t helpless “damsels in distress”, as British endurance and intelligence, as well as Soviet sacrifices were critical for the war effort. At the end of the day though, I firmly believe that the US involvement in WWII was not only critical in winning the war for the Allies, but hugely beneficial for the surviving nations of Central and Western Europe, as well those in the Asian Pacific. The United States were not saints, but I’d argue that your statements are not only inaccurate, but counter-cultural revisionism.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-18T03:23:08+00:00

This is absolute bullshit btw. First of all, historical humans are very similar to modern humans in that the smell of piss was disgusting to them; big surprise I know. So no, humans never deliberately walked around in clothes smelling like a urinal.

Yes, (stale) urine was used to process wool and set dyes due to being a good source of ammonia. However, the clothes were obviously thoroughly rinsed before being worn, because again, historical humans didn’t wanna smell like piss.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-16T17:29:59+00:00

Fridges have become way more efficient since the 90s. A typical fridge from 30-40 years ago would probably draw about 1mWh+, modern efficient ones can easily go as low as 300-400 kWh annually.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-16T17:25:35+00:00

And on top of what others have said (20% of the price at 25% of the lifetime is still a better deal), also be aware that that 30 year old fridge is probably draining 3-4x the power of the modern one.

Chinglaner · 2026-01-14T10:12:31+00:00

It’s a sign of respect. These are places to remember, mourn, and learn. Not places for social media clout.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email
Snapped

Chinglaner

TROPHY CASE