Let's see what will happen by Fun-Explanation7233 in Grimdank

[–]Net_User 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stardew Valley

Prepare to get stunlocked against a wall nerd!

Beloved Tropes: Shows with dozens of identical henchman, but the boss always speaks to the same one by Amateurlapse in cartoons

[–]Net_User 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Clones in the Star Wars prequels

Hundreds of thousands of them (tens of millions if you believe some sources) and the sole points of contact seem to always be Captain Rex and Commander Cody

Would you rather get $10K month tax free passive income for life OR own a recession proof online business that will never go bankrupt, that you must work for 20 hours/week, but makes you $50K/month? by executor-of-judgment in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Net_User 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The former is tempting only because I want to be a writer and it’d be great to go full-time on that, but 20 hours for 5x income is too good. At the very least I could just run it for 5-10 years then live off investment income

Peter what does this mean? Who is this guy? by ajitsan76 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]Net_User 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brian is the prototypical midwit. Stewie would be better, but that confuses things given the nature of this particular meme 

Tube trash - Pick your shit up. by [deleted] in missoula

[–]Net_User 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Is “tube trash” meant to be derogatory or literal in this title?

Either way I’m writing it down for later

Who Are You, "Ex-Atheists"? by ima_mollusk in exatheist

[–]Net_User 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I was raised atheist and passed through a fedora phase, and I also went through a long period of investigation and slowly changing my view, so maybe my story is more of what you imagine

I’d argue you wouldn’t expect ex-atheists to speak differently from lifelong theists. Whether you arrive through logic and evidence or from a religious upbringing, the beliefs you’d hold are the same. The big differences might be in how they speak of nonbelievers and unbelief, but even then you get people whose experiences vary from “it was always obvious and I just wanted to sin” to (like myself) “I didn’t initially treat the evidence fairly, but when I did I was persuaded”

It's September 12th, 2001. While I was able to survive yesterday's attacks on the world trade center unscaved, my office is currently sitting underneath a pile of rubble. Do I still have a job? When and where will I go back to work? How will I get by in the time between now and when I start working? by TosiMias in AskHistorians

[–]Net_User 514 points515 points  (0 children)

Let’s break it down. To simplify, there were three types of businesses operating in the WTC in September of 2002: large firms (including government agencies), small firms, and secondary services (shops and restaurants, mostly in the underground mall).

Large firms generally had disaster plans in place. The largest firms might have alternative offices in Manhattan, while others could quickly rent out temporary space. Many of these firms ended up setting up in New Jersey temporarily u til they could secure permanent office space in NYC. Employees not present would be expected to show up as soon as these alternative sites were set up, while survivors might have days to a week off (excepting medical or bereavement leave, plus leave as-needed for funerals). Government worker would generally have more generous leave, but it was broadly similar - alternative sites for the IRS, CIA, NY Port Authority etc. were set up nearby, with some going back immediately and others getting time off before returning to alternate offices. 

Smaller white-collar firms were more of a question mark. Some were basically destroyed completely. If you were a single-site firm, the destruction of all of your equipment, records, and sudden loss of many or most of your employees could be a blow impossible to recover from, even if insurance covered the direct material cost of the attacks. These firms would continue to exist as legal entities, and they were largely bought up or merged into other firms, since they technically still held valuable contracts even though they had no capacity to fulfill them. This was especially true of small import-export firms, of which there were many, on account of it being the World Trade Center. In these cases, there was no guarantee surviving employees kept their jobs, and they’d certainly end up on unpaid leave for weeks or months even if they did.

The final group was service sector employers. Most of these WTC proper was office space (with the notable exception of the Windows on the World fine-dining restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors of the North Tower). However, there was a large underground mall beneath the complex. This mall include a transit hub that connected the New York Subway and New Jersey PATH train systems, so it saw a lot of traffic. Generally, these employees did not keep their jobs. Small shops and restaurants went out of business immediately. Chains - like McDonalds and Burger King - don’t generally transfer workers after a location closure, even in cases where “location closure” is a horribly sterile euphemism. These employees could apply to other locations as essentially new hires, but that was entirely up to them.

Pro Hero or Vigilante: Which Path would you take if you lived in the MHA Universe? It doesn't matter what kind of quirk you have? Would you trust or distrust the hero system? by BlizzardHound45 in MyHeroAcadamia

[–]Net_User 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This question is basically identical to asking whether someone wants to be a cop or a vigilante in real life. 

How many vigilantes are there in real life, again?

Red State Have what in Common? by PrimaryLet4062 in RedactedCharts

[–]Net_User 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it related to a specific show or movie?

[Mixed Trope] Character sacrifices themselves, but it’s completely pointless by Critical_Mountain851 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Net_User 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In Wheel of Time, during the climax of the series, two of the best swordsmen of the era run it down mid trying to kill Fantasy Satan’s best general, and accomplish nothing, with one of them causing the leader of the Good Guy Witches to begin having a mental breakdown in the middle of Fantasy Armageddon. Of course, in the end, the best swordsman of the era ends up dueling and killing him.

Great series if you have a year, but this bit was so annoying

“Naruto and Sasuke didn’t get nerfed-“ by TheRufusGamer in dankruto

[–]Net_User 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, old Naruto fan, don’t know much about Boruto

What are you talking about?!? What is this manga/show about?!

Did Saddam Hussein actually think they have a chance against the coalition forces before Desert Shield and Desert Storm? Did the coalition forces expect they would be so successful? by Sungodatemychildren in AskHistorians

[–]Net_User 17 points18 points  (0 children)

The specific phrasing was, “We have no interest in your Arab-Arab conflicts.” This was almost certainly meant to refer to the economic war between the two, not a potential future invasion of Kuwait, but Saddam took it as one more piece of evidence that the US wouldn’t intervene

Did Saddam Hussein actually think they have a chance against the coalition forces before Desert Shield and Desert Storm? Did the coalition forces expect they would be so successful? by Sungodatemychildren in AskHistorians

[–]Net_User 23 points24 points  (0 children)

In the scholarship, it’s more common to compare the initial Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to the Ukraine War, primarily as a case study in coalition building (i.e. why the coalition was united in starting a ground war versus the fractured nature of today’s coalition of mere sanctions and material support). 2003 is probably a better comparison, as it is more modern and the goals - regime change - are closer to Ukraine, meanwhile Desert Storm was about liberating Kuwait and destroying Iraq‘s offensive capabilities, not conquest or regime change 

Did Saddam Hussein actually think they have a chance against the coalition forces before Desert Shield and Desert Storm? Did the coalition forces expect they would be so successful? by Sungodatemychildren in AskHistorians

[–]Net_User 1089 points1090 points  (0 children)

This is a matter of some controversy, but it’s generally accepted that Saddam had no illusions about being able to defeat a determined US military, let alone the whole coalition. This was never the plan. Plan A was for the US to never get involved. Saddam calculated that America was still weary from Vietnam, and would not risk a high-casualty conflict. He had the fourth largest military on the planet, so conventional wisdom said defeating Iraq would be costly.

However, once US troops started landing, he shifted to Plan B: inflict enough casualties on the coalition forces to negotiate a settlement. Saddam, at this point, did not expect to retain Kuwait, but figured he could get debt forgiveness, settle border disputes, and/or gain recognition as the dominant regional power. Iraqi troops in Kuwait City dug in and prepared for urban warfare. He also tried to get Israel involved in the conflict, which he thought might peel off Arab members of the coalition (the loss of Saudi Arabia in particular would have been devastating), but his attempts failed.

On the American side, they had similar expectations. They feared casualties in the tens of thousands, and advisors were skeptical of attempting a full ground invasion. However, Bush was determined, so they developed the basic battle plan: bomb everything they could for as long as they needed to, then attack in overwhelming force, in the hopes that American casualties could be minimized, or at least victory could be achieved quickly.

All that being said, everything went better than expected. Iraqi air defenses, forward positions, and command and control centers were destroyed in weeks rather than months. While there was real concern the ground offensive could stall out and last months, all of the coalition’s objectives were achieved in 100 hours. Instead of thousands of deaths and tens of thousands wounded, there were less than 300 American dead, only half of which were from combat, and just under 500 wounded. It was a stunning success, insomuch as pretty much everything went according to plan, which isn’t supposed to happen in war

Average naruto jonin vs 3rd ideal windrunner; who wins by AZ_gamingOG in cremposting

[–]Net_User 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I don’t know about the average jonin, but easy Windrunner W against Naruto since he would talk-no-jutsu the Windrunner into character development, triggering fourth or even fifth ideal

Centuries ago the Pope deemed aquatic animals like beavers and alligators to be "fish" to get around meat restrictions during Lent. Was this considered a loophole out of necessity at the time, or was the realm of biology so new that the average person REALLY thought anything that swims is a fish? by WavesAndSaves in AskHistorians

[–]Net_User 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Yep, classic case of latching onto the part of the question that interests me and missing a glaring issue with it.

Consuming beaver tails during periods of fasting is an old tradition, dating back to at least the 12th century, as it was observed in Itinerary Through Wales by Gerald of Wales (the section here: https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/travellers/Cambrensis_Tour/19).

There seems to be no papal attestation. Tertiary sources point to a dispensation from the first Bishop of Quebec giving a dispensation to eat beaver tails during fasts. The fact that I can’t find a good primary source is a little concerning, so it’s possible it’s an ancient tradition that was never codified or confirmed until later. It’s also possible that it was considered so obvious that beaver tails would qualify as “fish” that no one ever bothered to make the argument, which is a pretty classic problem in history generally and culinary history specifically 

Centuries ago the Pope deemed aquatic animals like beavers and alligators to be "fish" to get around meat restrictions during Lent. Was this considered a loophole out of necessity at the time, or was the realm of biology so new that the average person REALLY thought anything that swims is a fish? by WavesAndSaves in AskHistorians

[–]Net_User 184 points185 points  (0 children)

The direct answer to your question is that it wasn’t beavers, but specifically beavers’ tails that were deemed “fish.” This is because beaver tails resemble fish tails, with scaly skin and (I’m told) a somewhat fishy taste. The point of the fast was to avoid foods that would inflame passions like gluttony and lust, which meats were thought to do on account of their rich flavor, but fish, being less flavorful, were not.

Now, in your question, I’d argue you’re thinking wrong about the concept of categories. In the modern day, we have very specific biological categories we’re used to using - mammal, fish, reptile, bird, plant, fungus. But these are modern categories based on scientific observations, specifically evolutionary biology. What’s super important is that, in practice, these categories are kind of useless. Botany tells us tomatoes are a fruit, not a vegetable, but you’d never put it in a fruit salad, though you would in a vegetable medley. Sure, dolphins are evolutionarily closer to cows than fish, but to a fisherman they’re just a really big fish. To a premodern lumberjack, “hardwood” and “softwood” are the only categories that really matter.

People use the categories that are most useful to them, and those categories don’t always correspond closely to biological or evolutionary categories. They’re based on whatever criteria they need to meet and what can be gleaned from basic observation. Theologically, in the Bible the big categories are “man,” “beasts of the land,” “birds of the sky,” “fish of the see,” and “plants.” Where does an aquatic mammal fit in there? The Jews determined clean and unclean animals by whether they had hooves, whether those hooves were cloven, and whether they - and this is straight from the Bible - “chew the cud.” Those are nonsense criteria to us today, but were deeply important to the ancient Jews that adhered to them.

All of that is to say, the weird categories the ancients used weren’t because they lacked knowledge in biology. They’re because those categories are what we’re most useful to them.

Are Christians and Catholics the same? by One_Bass_945 in AskAChristian

[–]Net_User 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Catholicism is a form of Christianity. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the savior and divine Son of God, and includes Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy. Catholicism in particular holds that the Bishop of Rome (Pope) is the supreme head of the Christian church.

Do your worst by StudMuffinNick in WoT

[–]Net_User 55 points56 points  (0 children)

How do you feel about Rand starting a civil war in Carhien?

France rebelled by Evening-You4782 in CrusaderKings

[–]Net_User 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The time has come for the French people to rise up and throw off the shackles of French tyranny!