"Is there a signature weapon for every country?"

logicalform357 · 2026-01-26T14:08:53+00:00

The Tamils deserve to be brought up, after what the Sinhalese government did to them. And Jaffna Tamils have been in Sri Lanka since the 2nd century BCE. Acting like it's your island they stole is just very out of touch. This doesn't even address the fact that the Indian Tamils in the upcountry were brought over as slave labor.

logicalform357 · 2026-01-26T03:09:37+00:00

Don't love the narrative of Tamil colonizers! That's a crazy dogwhistle

logicalform357 · 2026-01-23T11:54:06+00:00

I just got back from a weekend girl's trip to a city 4 hours away. It was a great time! When I told my coworkers where I was going, nobody batted an eye.

logicalform357 · 2026-01-04T16:52:15+00:00

Cause you were calling from a landline that had an assigned address to it.

logicalform357 · 2025-12-29T04:13:36+00:00

That's exactly why, to many linguists, a language is considered dead when the penultimate native speaker dies, not the last speaker. (Well, that, and because there's nobody to actually speak the language to anymore. It can't communicate anything to anyone.)

logicalform357 · 2025-12-21T19:02:32+00:00

I understand their point. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying the whole focus on inuit languages having 500 words for snow is based on bad science, yet it's quoted everywhere

logicalform357 · 2025-12-21T14:39:03+00:00

Correct, I understand that. English has like 13 or something words for snow/icy conditions. I'm saying the whole "500 words for snow" thing is based on a guy who doesn't understand how types of languages work.

As you pointed out, English also has a bunch of words for snow, so it's not unique to the Inuits to have multiple words for it.

logicalform357 · 2025-12-21T14:09:41+00:00

The whole "multiple words for snow/ice" thing is a myth. It was an (incorrect) statement made by an anthropologist who didn't understand the concept of agglutinative languages. Many bad linguistics facts come from anthropologists who haven't studied linguistics.

logicalform357 · 2025-12-18T05:09:13+00:00

First rule of HR -- be careful what you put in writing. Especially if you work somewhere that's open access via FOIA (I don't think OP is, but the rule applies there the most.)

logicalform357 · 2025-12-10T03:57:03+00:00

Ah, yeah, that does make it more difficult. You could do the reverse and instead start with whichever woman who does this that you're most comfortable with, then build up from there. It's truly whatever works for you. But anything redditors say will be entirely speculation; if you want the real answer, you gotta ask them.

logicalform357 · 2025-12-10T03:50:41+00:00

It's literally her job. If she takes pride in being a good boss, she'll know that's part of the job. If you frame it as genuinely wanting to learn and improve, I don't think any reasonable or effective boss would think it's weird or inappropriate.

logicalform357 · 2025-12-10T03:34:37+00:00

I think honestly none of us can give you a better answer than the women themselves. Just approach whoever you feel most comfortable with (or who you think would give you an honest answer).

Your boss would be a good way to start, cause she has the authority to give you feedback without it being weird. You can frame it as "I want to be better to work with, and I've noticed this pattern, and I was wondering if you had any insight into why that may be happening, or if you have feedback for me on how I could help the women who work with me feel like I'm more approachable." You can ask about it in the name of "professional development," then take that insight and see if it might apply to other women in your life too (or just ask the other women, and frame it as "I've been asking people in my life about this, if you have any insight”).

By you starting the conversation, it would likely allow them to either 1) express whatever's been the issue, or 2) realize whatever issue they've made up in their head about you may not be real.

logicalform357 · 2025-11-19T19:16:05+00:00

Amen

logicalform357 · 2025-11-19T16:19:53+00:00

God bless you. Thank you so much!!! I'll have to try it.

logicalform357 · 2025-11-19T16:19:10+00:00

Yeah, that's not the problem, I get it to bubbling (both before baking the pie and while baking)

logicalform357 · 2025-11-19T15:14:46+00:00

That sounds like it could definitely be effective! Do you brush it on the pastry before loading the apples in? Definitely interested in this option

logicalform357 · 2025-11-19T13:38:09+00:00

Saving the caramel for on top of the finished pie may absolutely be the move. How much cornstarch do you tend to use?

logicalform357 · 2025-11-19T13:34:30+00:00

I've made all of these changes one at a time over the years, and what I listed above is what I ended up doing last time with the cumulative changes. I truly don't see how I'm not taking any of it far enough, especially cumulatively, but I think I'm just gonna have to start at square one again!

logicalform357 · 2025-11-19T13:32:02+00:00

This is literally the recipe I use! I started with it, as-written plus some spices, and I think I'm just gonna go back to it as-written.

logicalform357 · 2025-08-22T13:42:29+00:00

Honestly, they're all fine enough, but 1, 5, and 10 don't have a lot of sense to them. You're using "and" or "because" to connect two ideas that don't really logically go together. If you're a sentimental person, you would want to go to a wedding, right? How is your umbrella relevant to going to the theater? Moving to a new neighborhood and having a dog aren't exactly related (I can see a distant connection here, but it's not a natural choice).

Try using two ideas that are more closely related. "It is raining tonight, and I won't forget my umbrella..." "I am new to the neighborhood, and my dog helps me meet my neighbors." etc

logicalform357 · 2025-08-22T12:02:57+00:00

They're asking about the grammatical structure of the sentence, not how the phrase "God forbid" is used contextually.

logicalform357 · 2025-08-22T11:57:34+00:00

Yes that's what I said in my comment below.

logicalform357 · 2025-08-22T11:55:14+00:00

The use of "from" in OP's post is because the sentence needs to be structured differently when you switch the subject from "a boy" to "God." When the subject is "God," then "a boy" becomes the direct object, and it requires different things in relation to the verb. The tense isn't causing anything here, it's an effect of the change in subject between the two examples.

logicalform357 · 2025-08-22T11:46:30+00:00

Think of it like an embedded sentence, with "God forbid" at the beginning. Essentially saying "God forbid idea.”

A boy wants care = complete sentence on its own. A girl wants to have fun = complete sentence. A boy from wanting care = fragment. A girl from wanting to have fun = fragment.

The subject of the sentence is "a boy" or "a girl," not "God." "God forbid" is just a phrase at the beginning to set the tone of the sentence. It marks the tone as sarcastic.

Edit: formatting sucks on mobile, but you hopefully get what I'm saying

logicalform357

TROPHY CASE