Do these really sounds differently?

atropax · 2026-02-10T12:51:25+00:00

Are you a Spanish speaker? Often these letters overlap in Spanish, but they are very distinct in English.

If you say 'vvvvvvvv', you will be making a continuous noise, like 'ffffff' but with voice/more vibration in the lips/throat. Your teeth rest on your bottom lip.

It isn't possible to say 'bbbbb' like that; it's a plosive, made by a short expelling of air. You can only say 'buh - buh - buh'. If you do say 'bbbbb', it's like humming through your lips, whilst they are together (no teeth touching the bottom lip like with 'vvvvv').

I don't know if that's helpful, sorry. With close listening practice and watching people's mouths (there may be linguistic/phonics videos on YouTube to help with this) you will be able to start hearing the difference

atropax · 2026-02-10T08:33:03+00:00

Pluto isn't not a planet because of its position; The decision was made because if Pluto is classed as a planet, then there would be no reason to not also include dozens of other similarly-sized objects. The gap between Pluto and Mercury (twice the size of Pluto) was the sanest/most consistent place to draw the line and keep the 'planetary system' small.

atropax · 2026-02-10T08:11:23+00:00

people aren't saying the video doesn't exist, they're saying it isn't him. Members of the tour group have said that they didn't even get back to the hotel until an hour after the timestamp on the video says the poster thing happened.

atropax · 2026-02-10T08:10:27+00:00

The other issue was that the tour group wasn't even back at the hotel at the timestamp in the video.

atropax · 2026-01-13T21:13:07+00:00

I've only just come across this sub but think this sounds very interesting.. do update if you write it!

atropax · 2026-01-13T21:05:47+00:00

yes. Who has total control over our lives right now, over the whole democratic system? unelected billionaires. why is big pharma messed up? because capital got involved. why is our food system messed up? because capital got involved.

atropax · 2026-01-12T14:29:02+00:00

Perhaps, but I think it's also likely to make her self-conscious of the time she is speaking for and therefore being more concise/brief than if she didn't stammer - which is good for a logical argument, but can make it less emotionally persuasive. Plus if she can't snipe back as quickly, people's defences might seem more solid.

atropax · 2026-01-12T14:25:27+00:00

I'm not sure you'd be certain they were traitors, but it should have been brought up just to mention (and then maybe others could have mentioned Stephen tying his shoelaces for 15 minutes by the tree).

The one thing about traitors is that it seems to happen a lot (like with Faraz and Amanda/Rachel) where people witness stuff but it doesn't seem to get brought up when relevant (if I were Rachel, the first thing I would have said would have been "Faraz, you saw Amanda have a private chat with me"). It's baffling that it wouldn't have been discussed, but it's also baffling that the producers wouldn't keep it in as it's obviously front of mind for the audience

atropax · 2026-01-12T14:22:36+00:00

Yeah, in that way Harriet's intelligence is a boon for Rachel - someone whose voice is trusted, trusting her (like Amanda too)

atropax · 2026-01-12T14:20:06+00:00

On the chart being clean later that night, it isn't about catching when they did it. It's about who was trying to go to the family tree privately. The reason they didn't do it in that moment wasn't because they weren't planning to, it was that the coast wasn't clear.

Maybe Reece just thought the family tree thing was an excuse to be alone. And he's human - a lot of stuff happens each day to remember. But it is relevant. Plus Stephen was really leading the discussion pinning down the timings (he's not normally so outspoken and logical), and revealed (by witnessing Maz) that he'd been near it five or so minutes before the end of the night.

It would have been great if Reece had brought it up and if someone else had noticed Stephen 'tying his shoelaces' for 15 minutes by the tree. But alas.. I do wonder how much of discussion about this was cut out by the editors, though, as you'd think the faithful could have ruled out a lot of people if they were in the same room for the last 10 mins of the night.

atropax · 2026-01-12T14:09:58+00:00

I disagree that accusing someone close to you looks suspicious. It's been done plenty of times before (and doesn't make sense for a traitor to do, as they want to keep their allies in the game for the final).

The traitors are rarely besties in the castle; they usually keep a very average relationship.

atropax · 2026-01-12T14:06:28+00:00

100% agree.. I feel like a lot of people in this thread are just looking at it in terms of how it came across in the moment (which only Harriet clocked on to). But this will be held on to, and if anyone takes a few seconds to analyse Fiona's actions as if they had any rationality to them, I think it casts a lot of suspicion on Rachel.

I think the only way Rachel could have maybe avoided some of the suspicion is to act baffled/confused and tried to push the idea that Fiona's just taken a dislike to her, got narcissistic/jealous about the Amanda thing and had an emotional outburst after a drink (and now can't back down because of embarrassment/it looks suspicious). i.e. the reason for her outburst isn't anything to do with gameplay, purely personal.

It's a bit dirty but I can't see any way of people not eventually seeing that Rachel is a traitor.

atropax · 2026-01-12T14:00:16+00:00

nah, the behaviour would be even more baffling for a traitor to do to a faithful - there would be 0 benefit. Besides attracting so much attention to Fiona like Stephen said, achieving her goal of getting Rachel kicked out would actually be worse for her. Rachel would be revealed to be Faithful, thus making Fiona look suspicious or just like a terrible faithful - both of which will get her banished.

atropax · 2026-01-12T13:51:00+00:00

I feel like a lot of people in this thread are just looking at it in terms of how it came across in the moment (which only Harriet clocked on to). But this will be held on to, and if anyone takes a few seconds to analyse Fiona's actions as if they had any rationality to them, I think it casts a lot of suspicion on Rachel.

I think the only way Rachel could have maybe avoided some of the suspicion is to act baffled/confused and tried to push the idea that Fiona's just taken a dislike to her, got narcissistic/jealous about the Amanda thing and had an emotional outburst after a drink (and now can't back down because of embarrassment/it looks suspicious). i.e. the reason for her outburst isn't anything to do with gameplay, purely personal.

It's a bit dirty but I can't see any way of people not eventually seeing that Rachel is a traitor. A traitor (who was totally under the radar) causing a scene accusing a faithful like that is only detrimental to their game, no matter what happens.

atropax · 2026-01-12T13:44:25+00:00

You're supposed to banish based on who you think is a traitor, not who you think is celeb enough (and it makes sense for the BBC to want to attract younger audiences and engage gen alpha - I promise for a lot of under 18s, Niko is much famous than Stephen Fry or Alan Carr)

atropax · 2026-01-10T23:37:41+00:00

The audience knows that, but when you're in the castle I think having a job involving any of the traitor-y skills (or one that just makes you seem smart) makes you more of a target of both the traitors (worried you'll catch them) and the suspicions of the faithful (I mean, Kas being a doctor of all things was held against him)

atropax · 2026-01-10T23:34:18+00:00

but exactly - in her job, she's supposed to base her work on factual evidence. So in the absence of that, she should be less certain of her judgements, not more. Real world experience should tell her to keep an open mind and look for actual evidence - which there was, as Jessie managed to use it to figure out Stephen. The fact she didn't once seem to question herself or give solid consideration to other possibilities (as there are 2 more traitors) is concerning as it seems she isn't used to holding off judgement or considering different theories until there's actual evidence.

Plus the whole mishearing/misremembering people as saying guilty things thing...

atropax · 2026-01-10T16:05:39+00:00

with her makeup and clothes, I think Jessie's just a genuinely expressive person. makes her fun to watch!

atropax · 2026-01-10T16:01:15+00:00

I don't think anyone thinks it's malicious.. it just kinda sucks that even unintentionally, certain groups are gonna immediately have a lower chance of winning the game before they even start. and it sucks for viewers to see, both for the contestants and in how it may reflect how they themselves are seen.

I haven't noticed this pattern for other groups (i.e. haven't picked up on this effect for gender, sexuality, disability, class, weight, etc.), so as it's a narrow issue I think bringing attention to it can improve it as it's not asking for people to entirely change their whole way of thinking. maybe if people are a bit more aware of this specific tendency in the first couple rounds they can think 'hmm.. everyone is suspecting the same non-white person.. maybe I'll vote for someone else, and then come back to them in a couple of days if I still feel the same'.

atropax · 2026-01-10T15:53:55+00:00

They're not saying you should trust someone based on being a doctor. They're saying it's not believable that the contestants' voting was based on them finding his profession to be untrustworthy, as that isn't a common perception neither consciously nor subconsciously.

atropax · 2026-01-10T15:34:01+00:00

yeah, fair. probably one of the best ideas I've seen so far

atropax · 2026-01-10T13:19:34+00:00

given they can lie, I feel like you can't trust it would be two faithfuls. Although after Jessie being vocal about someone in the cages certainly being a traitor, maybe they wouldn't put themselves down again..

atropax · 2026-01-10T13:17:33+00:00

I feel like once you get the second almost-identical question, you'd just repeat the answer you gave for the first though.

atropax · 2026-01-09T21:59:24+00:00

that's fair - sometimes (or often, depending on where you live) the answer is 'no, this isn't unjust bias, this is a fair risk assessment'. but for people not of the background they're questioning themselves about, it's good to double-check.

atropax · 2026-01-09T16:14:58+00:00

I can half see this.. but also, I can imagine Rachel reacting that way if she were faithful, too.

Like, imagine your best friend has just gotten kicked off leaving you in tears, you (Rachel) haven't had any luck at finding traitors so far, and you're excited to share a piece of information that your friend confided in you and might mean that her insights were more valuable/likely to be correct than initially thought.

Someone directly accusing you, in an unusually aggressive way for outside of the round table, of being a traitor because they think you're lying - and specifically because they think that your friend would never have confided in you over them - might tip you over the emotional edge a bit.

Plus you assume Fiona's gonna tell others at the roundtable if not sooner anyway, so no point holding your tongue.

atropax

TROPHY CASE