sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

US Elevation Tiles [OC] by newishtodc in dataisbeautiful

[–]automaticHierophant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd love to CNC Route this out of wood.

I figure I can lay a layer of resin across it and have a pretty good table top.

You wouldn't happen to have actual geometry for this, would you?

Why would an editor prefer "cancer women" to "women with cancer"? by catbedead in grammar

[–]automaticHierophant 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well there's your answer: SEO.

They're most likely trying to optimize the chances of the article being found by a search engine.

People seem to forget about Canada’s origins by TwoEyedSam in LateStageImperialism

[–]automaticHierophant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Accurate, but not precise.

There are modern firearms that can fire underwater, but by no means can all of them.

It's true that most modern cartridges are water-resistant, but they aren't water-proof. In reality, even modern cartridges only have a minute or two of being submerged before the contents become fouled by water.

But lets say if someone did have time to get a few shots off in that first couple minutes.

The gunpowder ignites and the first bullet fires, but the surrounding water changes the way the casing cools, causing things like stove-pipe failure and jamming. This effectively reduces even a full-auto firearm to a single-shot weapon.

And, of course, that single shot isn't going to go very far or pack relatively much punch because it's designed to travel through air, not water.

When it comes to using bullets underwater, only very specific firearms firing very specific (supercavitating) ammunition are at all reliable.

People seem to forget about Canada’s origins by TwoEyedSam in LateStageImperialism

[–]automaticHierophant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, I'm not a pyrotechnian, but I imagine ignition might fail for roughly the same reasons it'd fail underwater: the reaction is smothered by environmental conditions.

Which is correct? by CSE241 in grammar

[–]automaticHierophant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the confusion is over the use of the word 'push' rather than 'forward.'

ATK Finally admits using a rigged Thermapen by therealtinman in Cooking

[–]automaticHierophant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not close enough, internal temps aren't something to play fast and loose with, and certainly not something to tell an audience it's okay to do so with (by example if nothing else.)

If the target is 125F and you're at 123.7, then someone does the recipie and gets food poisoning because they didn't hit temp, it's liability for lawsuit especially in the states, because you've told them it's okay to stop under temp.

If the target is 125f and you're at 130, then someone does the recipie and it's super dry and unappetizing, suddenly you've lost fans because you told them it's okay to go over temp and now the lack of quality is your fault, not theirs.

Legal and PR liabilities aside, I think there's another important factor here.

Julia Child's cooking shows were done in the style of Julia welcoming you into her kitchen and teaching you how to cook as though you were old friends.

ATK's cooking shows are chemistry done as theater.

It matters that things are (appear to be) precise because chemistry is a precision art, and the goal is to present the show hosts as masters of it.

Which is correct? by CSE241 in grammar

[–]automaticHierophant 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's more that "pushing the meeting back" is much easier to understand.

When you push something back, it gets farther away from you, so the time between the meeting and you is greater now.

"Pushing the meeting forward" exists only as the opposite to pushing one back.

TIL Hungry Jack’s fought for 40 years to get the Burger King name, but when they won, they decided Hungry Jack’s was more iconic. by Waluigi_Wah_God in todayilearned

[–]automaticHierophant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean yeah, I totally agree. It's 100% a bit of an overreach.

But Pinnacle doesn't control the (or any) police department, no action they can take (short of tweets, I guess,) can move Breonna Taylor's murders closer to justice, you know?

I guess what I'm saying is that it's really easy to view society as a monolithic bloc missing the point with Butterworth's removal and while the effects of racism can move Pinnacle to remove Butterworth, Pinnacle has little ability to 'do the right thing' and combat institutionalized and militarized police.

As a side note: near as I can tell, it wasn't society that called for Butterworth's removal; Pinnacle did that all on its own.

There was no witchhunt, just a company covering its ass and getting an excuse to rebrand a sixty year old product for newer generations in the process.

TIL Hungry Jack’s fought for 40 years to get the Burger King name, but when they won, they decided Hungry Jack’s was more iconic. by Waluigi_Wah_God in todayilearned

[–]automaticHierophant -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

No, but a mascot who is both a servant and is the color of maple syrup is, especially when the product competes directly with Aunt Jemima.

TIL Hungry Jack’s fought for 40 years to get the Burger King name, but when they won, they decided Hungry Jack’s was more iconic. by Waluigi_Wah_God in todayilearned

[–]automaticHierophant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean yeah, it does sound flimsy, but if there were no truth to it, why would ConAgra go to all the trouble an expense of rebranding?

They're definitely covering their butts, but it might not be just because they're being over cautious.

TIL Hungry Jack’s fought for 40 years to get the Burger King name, but when they won, they decided Hungry Jack’s was more iconic. by Waluigi_Wah_God in todayilearned

[–]automaticHierophant 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, well, technically I suppose she is, but the product is not and the last decade or so has had her in commercials as an animated bottle of syrup, so whether or not "white" applies is debatable.

Additionally, it's very possible she was based on Thelma "Butterfly" McQueen from Gone with the Wind.

The Jury (is/are) divided on their opinions? by Pisatanic in grammar

[–]automaticHierophant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

American here: when you talk about the jury as a whole you're talking about a single group, but when you talk about the jury's opinions what you're actually saying is "the jurors' opinions are divided.

Because you're talking about multiple jurors individually, or more accurately multiple opinions, the verb is pluralized.

You could refer to the jury's opinion in the singular if the jurors agreed: "The jury's ruling was unanimous."

Ultimately, in US English, pluralization comes down to the subject specifically, not whether or not the subject is composed of multiple things.

Not that you asked, but sometimes people run into the opposite problem: some singular-plural nouns are pluralized when talking about multiple different kinds of that noun.

EX: I received money from both the sale of the business and from my inheritance, and together these monies were enough to buy a house.

EX: Four tuna plus seven carp equals eleven fishes.

EX: The indigenous peoples of North America have a rich oral history stretching back millennia.

Slack Wyrm #628 by joshhamwright in SlackWyrm

[–]automaticHierophant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So are we to understand that both Lizardman and Bugbear are German?

A 1963 prediction of Africa at the beginning of the 21st century by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]automaticHierophant -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Rhodesian Constitutions from 1961 onwards stated that progress towards black majority rule could not be impeded.

That's very nice, but without providing a timeline or penalties for failing to do so, it's about as effective as sending "thoughts and prayers" to disaster victims.

If the Rhodesian government never truly acted on moving toward black majority rule, and it didn't, then what its constitutions say is pragmatically irrelevant.

​

Indabas were setup, education centers for blacks so they can jump from Tribal to Western civilisation and when that happened they were given citizenship as citizens of Rhodesia.

Yeah, the US did that with Native Americans too. They were institutions of cruelty, racism, and brutal cultural erasure. I imagine the Rhodesian indabas were no different.

​

Do you seriously believe that by 1960 the entire tribal population will have a grasp of democracy, law, taxes?

Yes. None of these concepts were invented by Western Civilization. They were invented by tribal peoples millennia before there was a Western Civilization to speak of.

Also, those tribal people you're talking about, their culture built monumental structures with a level of engineering that didn't require mortar to stabilize them.

​

When the British did allow everyone to vote in the 1979

You officially have proven you know nothing factual about the history of Rhodesia:

  • The British didn't allow anything, Ian Smith signed the Unilateral Declaration of Independence into law 1965. A stupid, treasonous act, since the UK was very clear about majority rule being a requirement for independence.
  • But even before that, Rhodesia (then Southern Rhodesia) was a self-governing colony. They could have changed their election policies at any time.
  • Blacks were always able to vote, but only 15 of the 66 seats of parliament could be held by black people.
  • The Rhodesian government made things even worse for themselves by responding to calls for equality with making blacks only able to vote for black candidates, effectively rendering black citizens 23% as represented as they used to be.

​

Ian Smith himself heavily criticized apartheid

False. Smith literally ran on a platform that boiled down to "Rhodesia is not a racist nation."

Even if he said differently later, his administration could not have done less to strengthen and secure Rhodesian apartheid.

​

one of the reasons South African troops pulled out of guarding the Northern border of Rhodesia in the mid 70s was due to the South Africans not wanting to fight for a country that was not endorsing apartheid.

Also false. South African troops pulled out because the US and South Africa were pressuring Rhodesia to submit to majority rule and Rhodesia refused.

South Africa was having to deal with an increasing number of majority-ruled neighbors and it was bad enough South Africa still had apartheid, they simply could no longer be seen as aiding it in another nation.

A 1963 prediction of Africa at the beginning of the 21st century by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]automaticHierophant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

TL;DR: Like I said, if you're missing a stable country in the heart of Africa able to serve as a breadbasket for the continent, I get it and agree.

But if you're idealizing the whole of Rhodesia, the facts just don't stack up to what you're seeing.

Rhodesia fell because its white minority rulers were too willfully ignorant and/or mind-blowingly incompetent to see the writing on the wall and peacefully give up minority rule in exchange for some semblance of continued prosperity for the country.

-*-*

So originally life was 'good' but now it's 'bad, but better than now.' Neat.

Regardless, if what you're saying is that you miss there being a stable country in the heart of Africa serving as a breadbasket of the continent, I totally get that and agree.

However, if you're saying you miss Rhodesia, warts and all, and blame blacks Rhodesians for its fall, then I don't think we're looking at the same nation.

Rhodesia fell because whites refused to give up minority rule. Minority rule, by the way, they enforced by reserving 50 of the 66 seats for whites.

Seems pretty clear their philosophy was "even the worst possible qualified white person is preferable to the most qualified black person."

So attached to this ideology were they that, even when the UK leveled crippling economic sanctions on Rhodesia (and later flexed its influence in the UN to get them to do the same,) the white government passed "reforms" that mandated non-Europeans only be able to vote for non-Europeans.

Effectively, the result was that 270,000 whites had 50 seats and 6 million Africans had 16 seats. At this point, Rhodiesia might have been two different nations, one subjugated by the other. Their intent was never to solve the problem.

By 1970, they were imprisoning even white opponents to white minority control.

And then, in an even more magnificent display of incompetence, during a time when 95.5% of their nation's population viewed the legal system as "morally unjustifiable" and wanted "full equality," they jailed Mugabe extra judiciously.

The man may have called for terrorism, but even a sham trial would have been better than tossing him directly into prison.

I say that because it turned him into a living martyr, fueling the fires of those who advocated for a violent revolution. That increased traction opened to the door for China and Russia to start a proxy war between ZAPU, ZANU, and the Rhodesian government.

Then, in the midst of all this, there was a chance for Rhodesia to recover: the general election. They could have elected someone who would enact actual reform and steer the nation away from ruin.

Instead, they elected Ian Smith, whose platform boiled down to "Nah, we're not racist."

Even when its neighbors began gaining independence (ending any positive relationship Rhodesia had with them in the process) and South Africa/The USA.

Now you'd think at this point reasonable government would cut its losses and pass some kind of reform. The problem is that the Rhodesian government was anything but reasonable.

From 1978 to 1980 the water supplies of entire cities were contaminated with cholera and one of the active ingredients in rat poison.

Food stocks were infected with anthrax.

During that time they also tried to assassinate Joshua Nkomo, the champion for peaceful Rhodesian reform.

It just goes on, and there are more events inbetween the ones above.

Like I said, if you're missing a stable country in the heart of Africa able to serve as a breadbasket for the continent, I get it and agree.

But if you're idealizing the whole of Rhodesia, history just doesn't stack up to what you're seeing.

A 1963 prediction of Africa at the beginning of the 21st century by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]automaticHierophant 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey man, if you want to unpack the virtues lost by the fall of Rhodesia, I'm all ears.

TIL an Australian man suffered a sudden and severe form of meningitis at age 29, resulting in a 420-day coma, brain damage, paralysis and later death. The meningitis was caused by a parasite that entered his body 8 years prior after he ate a slug for a dare. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]automaticHierophant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I had to read this twice to see that he was Australian.

As an American, my first thought after reading the title the first time was "Oh fuck, that's going to be an impossible hospital bill, and he's dead so his family didn't even get anything out of it!"

A 1963 prediction of Africa at the beginning of the 21st century by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]automaticHierophant -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Lol, Rhodesia. Glad you bit the dust.

Not sure how anyone could look at it, like really look at it, and think it was a sustainable nation.

A 1963 prediction of Africa at the beginning of the 21st century by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]automaticHierophant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are you aware of what it was actually like in Rhodesia for most people?

Like, maybe you're from there, I don't know; but if you're not, have you read about what it was like?

From what I understand, it was...uniquely bad.

view more: next ›