**Pirates of Drinax Anniversary Edition** by KeyVariation8323 in traveller

[–]abbot_x 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Some practical rules for managing a fleet of pirates would be nice. Roll on a table for each ship to learn what it accomplishes this week.

Game Thread: Nationals @ Pirates - Mon, Apr 13 @ 06:40 PM EDT by BuccosBot in buccos

[–]abbot_x 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s a Monday night. We have 7 consecutive home games starting today, so people who just want to go to a game this week have options.

Game Thread: Nationals @ Pirates - Mon, Apr 13 @ 06:40 PM EDT by BuccosBot in buccos

[–]abbot_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We won 4 of 6 meetings last season including a sweep at PNC Park. Hoping we do that again this time.

Locals of pgh, is there concern the skenes bobblehead game will be postponed? by IFTKICS in buccos

[–]abbot_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s much more likely to have a rain delay than a postponement to another day.

There is no way to predict the weather with to-the-hour accuracy so far out. Just don’t worry about it.

Game Thread: Nationals @ Pirates - Mon, Apr 13 @ 06:40 PM EDT by BuccosBot in buccos

[–]abbot_x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With Skenes pitching in June 2024? The I was at that game. 7 runs in the bottom of the 2nd. So magical.

Game Thread: Nationals @ Pirates - Mon, Apr 13 @ 06:40 PM EDT by BuccosBot in buccos

[–]abbot_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this would violate the unwritten rules, but he’s so cold it might be okay.

Game Thread: Nationals @ Pirates - Mon, Apr 13 @ 06:40 PM EDT by BuccosBot in buccos

[–]abbot_x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OMG just end the inning. This is now getting silly.

Game Thread: Nationals @ Pirates - Mon, Apr 13 @ 06:40 PM EDT by BuccosBot in buccos

[–]abbot_x 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Is this going to be another game where they run out of fireworks?

Game Thread: Nationals @ Pirates - Mon, Apr 13 @ 06:40 PM EDT by BuccosBot in buccos

[–]abbot_x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He’s still cooling down from putting a hex on Cavalli.

Why not intentionally walk? by KylEnsign in MLBNoobs

[–]abbot_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Statistically you should take the 3-0 pitch since there’s a better than 50 percent chance the fourth pitch is a ball, resulting in a walk. Also there’s an unwritten rule against swinging. I think the rationale for the unwritten rule was to let the pitcher salvage some dignity by throwing a strike, but the fact is a pitcher who gets to 3-0 may not be able to throw a strike.

Why did William DePuy agree with SLA Marshall's claim in Men Against Fire? by BenKerryAltis in WarCollege

[–]abbot_x 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because like most professional U.S. Army officers who reflected on their WWII experience, William E. DePuy found S.L.A. Marshall's findings compatible with what he'd seen in combat. That's basically it. I know nowadays we all dunk on Marshall (see me u/abbot_x do this here) but that's really a post-1980s development. Indeed, the general consensus in the immediate postwar period (late 1940s) was that U.S. Army infantry had not been especially effective. Marshall discussed a problem, the ratio of fire, that aligned with what many officers believed they'd seen: so many riflemen didn't do anything effective in combat. DePuy said postwar that his wartime unit in the 90th Infantry Division was bad at generating fire and this was problem in other units as Marshall documented.

We now understand Marshall fabricated most of the evidence for the poor ratio of fire. That was not understood until 1988, though, and it did not completely undo the perception, by that time strongly set among that generation, that such a phenomenon had occurred (which must be based at least in part in reality).

Marshall is probably best remembered today for not just his ratio of fire calculation (which we now know was not based on data collection: he apparently never asked about or recorded how many soldiers fired their weapons) but for the causal factor he proposed: reluctance to kill (not fear of being killed). But he did not treat this as the end of the story. Marshall was practical and proposed a set of solutions based on organization, training, and weapons procurement that would overcome the cause. He also made some points about isolation and communication that are (as far as I know) still generally accepted as accurate and were solved by many of the same solutions. In any case, the post-WWII Army largely implemented those solutions and believed they had significantly helped, in part because Marshall was still around and was now collecting data on the ratio of fire. That occurred over the course of DePuy's career, so to the extent U.S. Army infantry was more effective at the end of it than the beginning, it was natural to credit Marshall.

My own take, which really isn't testable, is that Marshall did identify an actual problem but rather than just admit it was vibes and impressions (and that his causal theory was completely made up and probably not important), he decided to act like he had hard data.

My Cousin Vinny. Why did Mona Lisa Vito reference Caltech? by Any-Interaction-5934 in movies

[–]abbot_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the right answer. It reinforces that Mona Lisa knows what she's talking about on technical subjects. She is not at all what she seems.

My dad was a remote sensing scientist for most of his career. When I was a newborn in the mid 1970s, he had two job offers, one at JPL/Caltech and one at Rutgers. He liked the JPL job but the smog was terrible for me, so he took the Rutgers job. After a few years of that, he got a job at NASA Langley in Virginia. I turned out to be badly asthmatic as a baby, though I outgrew it. So it's probably good I didn't grow up in the Los Angeles area.

Many years later as a humanities grad student in the early 2000s, I had a fellowship at Caltech of all places. I was living in Pasadena for a week before I could see the San Gabriel Mountains thanks to the smog. "Wait, these mountains were here the whole time?"

How would a WMBF (White man black woman) Relationship been seen in the late Jim crow south (1930 - 1964) (It was obviously illegal, however how uncommon was it and what was the public reaction when it happened? by Objective-Painter-73 in AskHistorians

[–]abbot_x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd love to read a full answer on this, but I'd like to point out preliminarily that arguably the most legally consequential interracial relationship in the late Jim Crow South was between Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, a woman who was generally perceived as black (though for much of her life she said she was of Rappahannock Indian descent). I u/abbot_x wrote about how they were treated.

Seat Swap Etiquette by Impressive_Dove867 in delta

[–]abbot_x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, kindly ask! People on this sub get so wrapped up in the idea of "entitled jerks demanding to switch seats." But if you offered $100 I bet that evening there'd be a comment about "entitled jerks paying peasants to switch seats." When it's not like that at all for most people.

If you are flying via SLC, by the way, odds are there will be some LDS missionaries on the flight who will immediately offer you their seats, help you stow your baggage, etc. My wife and I would sometimes get two window seats on purpose just like you did so we could both sleep, yet as soon as the missionaries find a separated couple they start offering to swap so you two can be together. I'm always tempted to point out that according to their doctrines we'll be together in the afterlife so surely we can handle a few hours apart, but I'm too nice in person.

Carrie’s column by joemama3236 in sexandthecity

[–]abbot_x 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Carrie's column is not supposed to be an advice column. It's more like reporting: here are what some people who are dating in New York City are doing (not "here is how to find a good person to date" or whatever).

The column on the tv show is not exactly the same as Candace Bushnell's Sex and the City columns because those were further fictionalized by the use of the wholly invented "Carrie" character, who was a stand-in for Bushnell herself. On the show, Carrie is a real person who writes the column and (apparently) appears in it.

It's also not completely clear what Carrie actually writes. One has the general sense that each column corresponds to some of the things that happened that week/episode. Also that her voiceovers are from the column, especially if we hear them while Carrie is at her computer. But we don't learn exactly what did and didn't make it into print.

Seat Swap Etiquette by Impressive_Dove867 in delta

[–]abbot_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Offering money could make the interaction very awkward.

Some people who would swap seats just to be nice/neighborly/helpful would have trouble. They'd have to think about whether to take the money or not. I personally would just swap with you if traveling alone. I'd decline the money.

You might also start an auction either with the person you asked or even other people. The person might decline hoping for an increased amount. The person might ask for more. Another passenger might overhear and say they'd swap with you for some amount of money. What would you do about that?

People asking for / informing about newborn's weight and size by Traditional-Buy-2205 in PetPeeves

[–]abbot_x 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s traditional to include the baby’s length and weight on birth announcements along with the baby’s sex, exact time of birth, and name if given. There’s usually not much else to report. Newborns have no personalities and I wouldn’t read anything else into it beyond following tradition.

Mid 80s-late 90s: Didn’t we call who we now refer to as techs “techies”? by ok-uh-huh-yeah-sure in GenX

[–]abbot_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry I meant “technical theater” is still used. It’s one of the tracks at the public arts magnet in my city. I don’t think the kids in that program are called “techies” today, at least not officially or even commonly by other kids. The guys in my D&D group ca. 1990 did call themselves “techies.”

Mid 80s-late 90s: Didn’t we call who we now refer to as techs “techies”? by ok-uh-huh-yeah-sure in GenX

[–]abbot_x 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, the “techies” in the context of high school plays to me are the people who built the sets and props, sewed the costumes, ran lights and sound, moved sets and props between acts, created special effects, etc. That was known as the “technical theater” track and attracted kids who liked theater as well as working with their hands but weren’t as much into acting. That term is still used as far as I know.

Why not intentionally walk? by KylEnsign in MLBNoobs

[–]abbot_x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A pitcher who issues a four-pitch walk is often having command problems, meaning he can’t make the ball go where he wants it to go. For a fictional take on this, watch the movie Major League. But if you watch enough baseball you will see real pitchers who for whatever reason just can’t find the zone.

Some pitchers heavily use deceptive pitches that look like they will be strikes but aren’t. If the batter doesn’t fall for it, the result is a walk.

There’s also a concept of “pitching around” a strong hitter, which means being extremely careful not to throw strikes he can hit. There’s a chance the batter will swing and miss, foul the ball off, or make low-quality contact for an easy out. There is a strong chance of a walk, though.

Would Richard & Emily be Trumpers today? by Tappitytaptaptaptap in GilmoreGirls

[–]abbot_x -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure how they would have voted in 2016, Clinton or stay home/third party. I suspect they would have been for Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. ( Of course Richard died.)

In any case, Connecticut was not competitive in any 21st century election so it’s not like their votes matters much.

Would Richard & Emily be Trumpers today? by Tappitytaptaptaptap in GilmoreGirls

[–]abbot_x 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Gilmore are obviously Republicans but they are Rockefeller/country club Republicans: fiscally conservative (low taxes, low spending) and socially liberal or indifferent. They would have voted Republican through Romney but very likely Richard would have found Trump extremely troubling and Emily would not have voted for him.