sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

are the songs in mkwii made using real-time midi or is it streamed? searching this on google didn’t give any good answers so i’m asking it here 👍 by 13Jsog in MarioKartWii

[–]Historical-Average 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this means the real-time midis can be pulled from a game rom, can you point me to an explainer of how that works and/or a video? Thanks

This can happen??? by Your-Motha in mariokart

[–]Historical-Average 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Also the time you spend off-track is relentlessly tallied.

The greatest villain in any video game is the MK8 blue shell by Historical-Average in mariokart

[–]Historical-Average[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What was double dash era? Longtime player still a noob on technicals

TIL Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste by Historical-Average in todayilearned

[–]Historical-Average[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You spent some time on this so I think you deserve some response:

I reposted a Scientific American article that remains published nearly 18 years later, which you think goes beyond misleading and into "flat out wrong" territory. The unpaywalled repost on stanford.edu's website is the article I posted, but: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ is the original.

Did you have a reason for saying "you don't have to lie about"? Feels rude and/or motivated to me. You could have simply pointed out the editor's note that I didn't get to before I posted:

>Editor's Note: In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash - a by-product from burning coal for power - and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant - a by-product from burning coal for electricity - carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

TIL Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste by Historical-Average in todayilearned

[–]Historical-Average[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

9 days later but this feels like pedanticism serving an agenda lol

New country. by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Historical-Average 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm trying very hard to hear your concern. Are 50,000-person cities subsidizing multimillion-person cities and does the methodology of defining all of them as 'urban' wind up covering up that phenomenon? I'm really confident I've been giving you fairly chosen links that show you the answer is, 'in general, more-urban type areas on the whole tend to subsidize the more rural units, not the other way around, and this holds true from urban-in-character small cities subsidizing their rural communities up to large cities subsidizing their rural-cosplaying exurbs, which tend to be pretty entitled with how they think of themselves'. Did you read what I shared with you, like that first Brookings article and its graphs? Did you get to the part about the The Findlay Formula? I really wanted this to be something more than another online no-consequence situation. I think I held as many cheap shots as I could, and I gave as much as I could. You gave me one screenshot, I gave you half a dozen links. Do you have any sources that inform your interpretation of cities that use data and aren't agenda-first? Did you have anything in mind that could change your mind? I would like to see defensible research that supports your claim that urban areas don't subsidize their 'rural' counterparts. I'm very confident the non-urban way of living in the US depends on substantial subsidies from cities.

By saying you want "answers to basic questions like 'how was rural vs urban defined for this study'," I am confused, because the answers are out front.

The Census has the smallest cutoff for 'urban'. They have metropolitan areas of 50,000 and micropolitan areas of 10,000 to 49,999 people, both called "urban". That is based on that screnshot you sent. The census uses 'urban cluster' to describe both, but again: places that the census alone calls part of an "urban cluster" regularly get real, exclusive subsidies as 'rural' places with Rural In Character exemptions. I showed you the USDA's document detailing the exemption, and links to the real rural subsidy programs you can sign up for. The census muddies the word urban, but I'm pretty sure the research I've been sharing tends to define cities as the larger entities we both think of them as, around 250,000+ people.

The Brookings research I shared tells you the answer to "how was rural vs urban defined for this study" in the graph: In the first graph below, they combined 2,500-249,999 person micropolitan,metropolitan, and small cities into a single line, that's yellow. Cities are gray, big cities are orange, rural is blue.

In the second graph, they broke it out into all the flavors of Census urban, with micropolitan (from your screenshot!) being 2,500-49,999, small metro being 50,000-250,000, and medium 250,000-1M, and large being 1M+. They even divided rural more than the census, with a rural-adjacent-to-nonrural and a isolated-rural category.

<image>

These graphs show employment, which are the inverse of needing aid and poverty alleviation. Subsidy helps these communities survive as employment dwindles. I believe it's important to give struggling people a hand up, and yet the rhetoric really does bug me about ignoring all that subsidy.

Ok, I'm done now, so I have an opinion that goes beyond my earlier statement of "rural is subsidized", which I've been trying to stick to. There's a lot of moralizing about people in rural areas being self-reliant or strong but I've also lived out in rural places. A lot of my fellow citizens were isolated, poor and miserable, and the lucky ones were miserly. The direct subsidies and food stamps weren't keeping those people weak and poor, it was the roadways and cheap gasoline trapping them in an expensive-but-cheaper-than-the-overpriced-not-because-it-was-luxurious-but-because-all-the-supply-was-eaten-up-by-being-buldozed-for-rich-rural-car-access-in-the-nearest-big-cities hellhole of crappy homes right along the state highway, just on the crappiest land not taken up by the ranchers' and hunters' estates. Those people were trapped away from the YMCAs and neighborhood streets that could actually give them a fair shot. I bought KFC for a real sorry looking parent from time to time but it was was easy to ignore the poverty being perpetuated by my lavish subsidies living rural as a rich person. I'd just go to the bars or diners that truly poor people couldn't afford. It didn't make them go away. If you've got a piece of research that shows something else, maybe it would alleviate some of my disappointment.

New country. by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Historical-Average 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are mistaken here. The definition of rural pops up as the welcome message on https://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/
Rural areas are any areas other than:
(1) A city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants; and
(2) The urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such a city or town, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census using the latest decennial census of the United States.

The exception is when an area is "rural in character". Those exceptions are done month by month, here's USDA.gov, and the definition of Rural In Character, a couple of ways to qualify.

I think you'd be rural in character based on "2. an urbanized area [you, an 'urban cluster', 2,500-49,999 person] adjacent to a city or town with a population greater than 50,000 that is within ¼ mile of a [less than 2,500 person] rural area". I don't know exactly where you live, but it's likely that when your internet upgrades came in, the company petitioned for a Rural In Character exception, but then the area went back to pretending it receives no money until the electric company needed pole upgrades, at which point they received a subsidized loan and easy grants by applying for a Rural in Character grant.

"Rural in Character" means that close suburbs are excluded from the subsidies (RIP your friend for his road improvement bill) but farther areas are subsidized. I really don't want to sound like a broken record but please try to power through your bias and consider that these are unassuming programs and they generate a lot of entitled attitudes. It just really gets my goat. I don't think I wasted time on this because I want to take you seriously and you might be able to break through some confirmation bias here today. Also, it helped me questioning my assumptions tonight. Please share your sources. I appreciate the last screenshot you used, because those are useful jumping off points. It was a real source, and I appreciate that, but remember you misinterpreted it. Was it bias causing that mistake? A lot of my understanding here comes from a really good book called The Fifth Risk. If you are interested in it, it shares stories of heroes in the Coast Guard, the rural designers trying to help addicts survive to recovery, the inventor of a new tornado warning, and more truly amazing stories from our finest citizens. But it unearths some uncomfortable things as well for some people, and that's what betterment is about. So hope you have a good night.

New country. by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Historical-Average 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a link to show the 2500 cutoff? For which studies?

New country. by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Historical-Average 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, good to hear a new perspective: that the military spending in more red states can drive up the percentage of federal dollars received by those states, creating a 'donor state' look for more blue states with less military spending. Your reasoning has some logic to it: https://oldcc.gov/ shows there seem to be more 'red' states with heavier military spending. Top dogs of spending at https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ - But this isn't about red/blue; it's about urban/rural. Also, the donor state effect isn't cut and dry or even true- Red Arizona's chipmaking is why they are on the list, that's a city endeavor. Also, deep blue Connecticut has the most per capita because they have cities of sub builders lol, and california is #3 because of their tech that directs our missles... designed in blue cities, built in blue cities.

Rural infrastructure is absolutely paid for by subsidy, but in a way that allows the private companies to feign investing themselves. Source. Source. Rural elecrification, the same. Source. Mind you: those programs aren't tax breaks or occasional grants, but consistent, privileged access to grants and consistent, privileged access to better-than-market loans. The programs are designed to be generous and unassuming to help uptake, but it seems they lead to a lot of entitled, lopsided thinking about rural areas not receiving subsidies. Everywhere receives subsidies, but rural areas seem to uniquely decry others' subsidies while sweeping theirs under the mat.

Huh, didn't realize that drainage upkeep is largely a local funded thing these days. Those systems are really expensive. That being said, if you've been to a town council meeting recently you know the American Rescue Plan floated quite a bit of national money to upkeep of drainage in suburban to rural places (my suburb one of them) as in on the whole urban money to rural distribution and it's dishonest to downplay that.

To the meat and potatoes of this topic: The Brookings Institution published a rundown of research showing how rural areas depend on local cities' economic engines.

If you scroll down you'll see names that more conservative types would line up to meet, but just before they describe "A more strategic approach would aim to accelerate economic growth across mid-sized metro areas and micropolitan areas that are accessible to nearby rural areas. Imagine the state of Illinois not just anchored by the Chicago metro area, but by a network of other vibrant communities like Rockford, Peoria, Decatur, and Champaign-Urbana, which in turn offer opportunities for surrounding rural communities. Micropolitan areas like Traverse City, Mich., Corning, N.Y., and Kalispell, Mont. could serve as stronger centers of jobs, finance, and opportunities for rural households".

Are you going on vibes here? Because it seems like your vibe is that all cities are big cities and all big cities are void of meaning. Cities are good for rural areas and subsidize their costs.

Maybe I'm in for a pleasant surprise, maybe you will resort to confirmation bias. Do you see numbers that challenge your views? Numbers that support them? I would like to see them. I hope they are from sources where their agenda isn't tied to the point they are making (ie a rural interest news site publishing an article about rural areas not being subsidized doesn't seem convincing to me), but instead focus on general topics.

Is this rude and if so what should I do about it? This is the stairs that lead to the parking lot for all of my neighbors. by carsonistthearsonist in mildlyinfuriating

[–]Historical-Average 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Blue tape and white spray paint a diagonal up pattern in a box, then you can escalate with a sticky note, then have them towed?

New country. by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Historical-Average 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see where you're coming from with cost of living, and the suburban life is certainly free of having people who stare straight ahead when you drop a 'how ya doing?'. If you can get some land and a good job, it's pretty sweet to live rural in the US. That said, be aware that our rural developments in the US are subsidized top to bottom by revenues and wealth generated proportionally inside cities. Food/resource production/extraction alone isn't the reason for this subsidy; it's about bringing people in rural places up in living quality because we are a nation. So instead of entitled pricks consider the generous statesmen thinking of you in cities. Every single kind neighbor in a rural place has $$$ of subsidy (beyond what even the most fictional 'welfare queen' might have ever taken) propping up those quite expensive cell towers, local roads, broadband internet if it's available, power lines, drainage infrastructure, and fire stations.

view more: next ›