2489 pts ยท February 9, 2014
Is there a source for this? I've heard the anecdote many times but I've never seen any serious research suggesting that Canadians committed a disproportionate or particularly creative series of war crimes.
That is cool. Another fun fact is that "factoid" originally meant false information accepted as true simply as a result of being published.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid
One of my favourite little facts is that the distance of the first Wright Brothers flight in 1903 (120 ft) is less than the wingspan of a 1917 Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI (138 ft). The pace of aircraft advancement in the 20th century was incredible.
There's kind of a real answer in this case: Arctic adaptation generally causes things to have stockier, chunkier features due to the lower heat loss associated with shapes that have high volume to surface area ratios. It's not universal, but it applies to the polar bear, and it's part of what makes them look cute. Living in a place where it's a really good idea to eat everything that's not a mate or your own offspring makes them... unfrenly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen's_rule
That's supposed to be a giant millipede I think. They're vegetarians and very "polite" critters.
If we go with a more extreme example, say $5 to $40 per hour, and if each person harvests one watermelon every 2 minutes, the cost of labour goes from $0.17 to $1.33 per watermelon (11.6 cent per pound price increase for 10 pound watermelon). Technically a 700% increase in the cost of field labour, but it goes to show how those wages are diluted in their effect on price, even moreso if the labourer is faster, and even moreso if productivity-aiding technology/practices are introduced.
In the latest budget they dropped the luxury tax on second homes, private planes, and yachts, and said doing so would save on administration. No numbers to say how much it would save, or whether the savings would outweigh lost revenue. Couldn't be more of a parody.
I'll have to disagree. He's got the smell of a loss on him now, and he still isn't exhibiting strong opposition to annexation and the trade war that is very in vogue right now. (although neither is Carney) If he had a solid platform, I'd say he has a chance, but the Cons had a weak platform during the election and we haven't heard much that's new from them since. I attribute Con success last election to the public rejecting Trudeau, which no longer applies. I could be wrong, but that's my take.
Poilievre is garbage and the Conservatives would have done well to curb him ages ago. He doesn't really have a chance in hell. The Liberals have shifted right economically too. We're scaling back funding for programs in the latest budget, while also cutting luxury tax on second homes, yachts, and planes, which speaks volumes to priorities. All to say, Poilievre's only talent was complaining about a controversial PM, and it won't work on a boring PM whose policies appeal to the right.
I mean probably, yeah. As an evaluation thing during training (Can you follow orders and keep up with a task consistently) I don't have a problem with it, but it doesn't make much sense as a career-long thing. We trust other people (pilots, surgeons, engineers, etc.) to do important things without checking to be sure that they're also mastering some unrelated triviality like keeping their fridge organized or their hedges trimmed.
Haha, the key is to look for slim truths, and pass them through a filter of chauvinism. Like "America liberated China" is a somewhat true thing he could have heard somewhere, and then he: 1) ignores the subtleties of the historical events, 2) ignores the intervening history in the last 80 years, 3) ignores the fact that if China is a negative influence on the world then it is bad to claim credit for giving them power, 4) places himself at the centre of the world. Now everything makes "sense".
He seems to be trying to take credit for Chinese ascendancy on the basis that America was directly responsible for toppling the Japanese Empire, and in doing so contributed significantly to the liberation of China from Japanese occupation. There were also American volunteers fighting the Japanese in China as the Flying Tigers before America officially entering the war. Hoever, America aligned with the Kuomintang, and not the Maoists, and America fought PRC soldiers in Korea and Vietnam sooo...
Nonsense, "The National Party of Truth and Love and Happiness and Definitely Not Throwing Your Favourite Boy Band in a Woodchipper" is going to bring a brighter future for me and *NSYNC. Bit of a wordy name for the ballot though, they should fix that.
Yeah, doesn't make sense. 1 M Confederate troops probably translates to like 30 000 officers, still huge. Conf. surrender(s) had terms, and the Union could keep fighting, accept terms, or accept then break terms. US Southern pop. was like 9 million, incl. 4 M enslaved. Taking voting rights from a 1M men means voting pop. would be less than 1.5 M, who would have even more reason to be angry after 30k executions. Plus that million now has no means to affect change except for more violence.
I wonder if it's the lactose in the butter that they're attracted to. I'm not super familiar with the ingredients in margarine, but I'm not sure if it has any sugars like that.
While filming it with their other hand too!
What I actually meant was more from a cost-benefit perspective. A wind project might produce power at $100 per megawatt hour over its lifetime, whereas a nuclear project might cost $200 per megawatt hour (both share roughly the same emissions per unit energy). With a fixed budget, we do more for the planet and displace more fossil fuels by investing in wind, but that's a reason to promote wind, not fight nuclear. Wind and solar may be the best options, but nuclear is still a very good option.
The Suzuki Foundation published articles which were critical of nuclear power as "becoming as outdated as fossil fuels" and suggested that investments in nuclear should be diverted to renewables. Not wrong per se, but there's definitely some "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" going on there.
It depends: is the religion tied to race/ethnicity, and do they think they're entitled to power in their mortal lives? E.g. if an Arab Muslim believes Muslims are God's chosen people, but also anyone can be Muslim, only believers are rewarded in the afterlife, and during mortal life they have no special privilege over nonbelievers, that's not the same as believing Arabs are a master race. If they believe only Arabs can be Muslim, and Muslims should rule the world, then the concepts are the same.
(2/2) That said, your point about rape/assault is a much more grounded concern, and in light of reading that intimate partner sexual violence affects as many as 1 in 4 women in the USA, I will have to consider that further. I maintain there is merit in remembering the feelings of the person being "vetted" more than is considered in the original post. I won't respond here any further, because the implication that women are unsafe around me is beyond my tolerance for mistreatment.
It was only a matter of time before someone implied I'm a predator. Yes, the odds are low. For roughly 1/50 000 women/girls age 15-44 per year in the US are killed by intimate partner violence. Less than diabetes, much less than suicide, 1/16th as many intimate partner murders as accidents. I will *repeat* that people have every right to precautions, but seriously treating a date as a killer is like treating 10 black spins in a row on the roulette wheel as a serious investment strategy. (1/2)
Fair criticism of the analogy. Maybe a better comparison is being asked to take down your hood in a store? The store may ask it of everyone, but intentional or not the request carries the implication that you are potentially a thief. The odds of being killed by an intimate partner for a dating aged woman/girl are so low that it's not unreasonable for a date to read into the connotations of precautions like these as being based on themselves as an individual.
I feel like that's only an apt comparison if we were living in a world where the arm was the part of the body that poo came out of.
People have every right to request anything they want in order to feel safe, and every right to cancel a date if the other person declines. That being said, I view this very much like a father requesting a paternity test after his child is born. The precaution is logical, and someone who has done/will do nothing wrong has nothing to fear, but it is naive for the requester to ignore the very obvious implication of the precaution.
#6 - "Distract him rightly with the pommel."
I'm not raising it as an issue, just a point of fact. Although it could become an issue if we start to talk about it in terms of the extinction of humanity. Way too early to talk about it in those terms though, because a shrinking, aging, more technological population decades from now will be such a radically different society that talking about it now is like trying to predict the ramifications of peak oil in 1910.
Generally populations don't just keep growing. The world went from an average 5 births per woman in 1963, to 2.3 in 2022 with the downward trend likely to continue. The "replacement rate" is regarded to be around 2.3. The UN projects world population will peak at 10.3 billion in the 2080s, then begin a decline. Less than half the world's countries are above replacement, half of those are in Africa, and increasing education and prosperity will probably bring down birthrates there as elsewhere.
Canada's confederation in 1867 was partially driven by concerns of military annexation via Manifest Destiny and the expansion of the American standing army in the aftermath of the Civil War. Newfoundland and Labrador, the last province to join in 1949, considered and rejected the idea of joining the United States instead. Not being part of the United States has been baked into Canada's national DNA at every step of its national evolution.
Is there a source for this? I've heard the anecdote many times but I've never seen any serious research suggesting that Canadians committed a disproportionate or particularly creative series of war crimes.
That is cool. Another fun fact is that "factoid" originally meant false information accepted as true simply as a result of being published.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid
One of my favourite little facts is that the distance of the first Wright Brothers flight in 1903 (120 ft) is less than the wingspan of a 1917 Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI (138 ft). The pace of aircraft advancement in the 20th century was incredible.
There's kind of a real answer in this case: Arctic adaptation generally causes things to have stockier, chunkier features due to the lower heat loss associated with shapes that have high volume to surface area ratios. It's not universal, but it applies to the polar bear, and it's part of what makes them look cute. Living in a place where it's a really good idea to eat everything that's not a mate or your own offspring makes them... unfrenly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen's_rule
That's supposed to be a giant millipede I think. They're vegetarians and very "polite" critters.
If we go with a more extreme example, say $5 to $40 per hour, and if each person harvests one watermelon every 2 minutes, the cost of labour goes from $0.17 to $1.33 per watermelon (11.6 cent per pound price increase for 10 pound watermelon). Technically a 700% increase in the cost of field labour, but it goes to show how those wages are diluted in their effect on price, even moreso if the labourer is faster, and even moreso if productivity-aiding technology/practices are introduced.
In the latest budget they dropped the luxury tax on second homes, private planes, and yachts, and said doing so would save on administration. No numbers to say how much it would save, or whether the savings would outweigh lost revenue. Couldn't be more of a parody.
I'll have to disagree. He's got the smell of a loss on him now, and he still isn't exhibiting strong opposition to annexation and the trade war that is very in vogue right now. (although neither is Carney) If he had a solid platform, I'd say he has a chance, but the Cons had a weak platform during the election and we haven't heard much that's new from them since. I attribute Con success last election to the public rejecting Trudeau, which no longer applies. I could be wrong, but that's my take.
Poilievre is garbage and the Conservatives would have done well to curb him ages ago. He doesn't really have a chance in hell. The Liberals have shifted right economically too. We're scaling back funding for programs in the latest budget, while also cutting luxury tax on second homes, yachts, and planes, which speaks volumes to priorities. All to say, Poilievre's only talent was complaining about a controversial PM, and it won't work on a boring PM whose policies appeal to the right.
I mean probably, yeah. As an evaluation thing during training (Can you follow orders and keep up with a task consistently) I don't have a problem with it, but it doesn't make much sense as a career-long thing. We trust other people (pilots, surgeons, engineers, etc.) to do important things without checking to be sure that they're also mastering some unrelated triviality like keeping their fridge organized or their hedges trimmed.
Haha, the key is to look for slim truths, and pass them through a filter of chauvinism. Like "America liberated China" is a somewhat true thing he could have heard somewhere, and then he: 1) ignores the subtleties of the historical events, 2) ignores the intervening history in the last 80 years, 3) ignores the fact that if China is a negative influence on the world then it is bad to claim credit for giving them power, 4) places himself at the centre of the world. Now everything makes "sense".
He seems to be trying to take credit for Chinese ascendancy on the basis that America was directly responsible for toppling the Japanese Empire, and in doing so contributed significantly to the liberation of China from Japanese occupation. There were also American volunteers fighting the Japanese in China as the Flying Tigers before America officially entering the war. Hoever, America aligned with the Kuomintang, and not the Maoists, and America fought PRC soldiers in Korea and Vietnam sooo...
Nonsense, "The National Party of Truth and Love and Happiness and Definitely Not Throwing Your Favourite Boy Band in a Woodchipper" is going to bring a brighter future for me and *NSYNC. Bit of a wordy name for the ballot though, they should fix that.
Yeah, doesn't make sense. 1 M Confederate troops probably translates to like 30 000 officers, still huge. Conf. surrender(s) had terms, and the Union could keep fighting, accept terms, or accept then break terms. US Southern pop. was like 9 million, incl. 4 M enslaved. Taking voting rights from a 1M men means voting pop. would be less than 1.5 M, who would have even more reason to be angry after 30k executions. Plus that million now has no means to affect change except for more violence.
I wonder if it's the lactose in the butter that they're attracted to. I'm not super familiar with the ingredients in margarine, but I'm not sure if it has any sugars like that.
While filming it with their other hand too!
What I actually meant was more from a cost-benefit perspective. A wind project might produce power at $100 per megawatt hour over its lifetime, whereas a nuclear project might cost $200 per megawatt hour (both share roughly the same emissions per unit energy). With a fixed budget, we do more for the planet and displace more fossil fuels by investing in wind, but that's a reason to promote wind, not fight nuclear. Wind and solar may be the best options, but nuclear is still a very good option.
The Suzuki Foundation published articles which were critical of nuclear power as "becoming as outdated as fossil fuels" and suggested that investments in nuclear should be diverted to renewables. Not wrong per se, but there's definitely some "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" going on there.
It depends: is the religion tied to race/ethnicity, and do they think they're entitled to power in their mortal lives? E.g. if an Arab Muslim believes Muslims are God's chosen people, but also anyone can be Muslim, only believers are rewarded in the afterlife, and during mortal life they have no special privilege over nonbelievers, that's not the same as believing Arabs are a master race. If they believe only Arabs can be Muslim, and Muslims should rule the world, then the concepts are the same.
(2/2) That said, your point about rape/assault is a much more grounded concern, and in light of reading that intimate partner sexual violence affects as many as 1 in 4 women in the USA, I will have to consider that further. I maintain there is merit in remembering the feelings of the person being "vetted" more than is considered in the original post. I won't respond here any further, because the implication that women are unsafe around me is beyond my tolerance for mistreatment.
It was only a matter of time before someone implied I'm a predator. Yes, the odds are low. For roughly 1/50 000 women/girls age 15-44 per year in the US are killed by intimate partner violence. Less than diabetes, much less than suicide, 1/16th as many intimate partner murders as accidents. I will *repeat* that people have every right to precautions, but seriously treating a date as a killer is like treating 10 black spins in a row on the roulette wheel as a serious investment strategy. (1/2)
Fair criticism of the analogy. Maybe a better comparison is being asked to take down your hood in a store? The store may ask it of everyone, but intentional or not the request carries the implication that you are potentially a thief. The odds of being killed by an intimate partner for a dating aged woman/girl are so low that it's not unreasonable for a date to read into the connotations of precautions like these as being based on themselves as an individual.
I feel like that's only an apt comparison if we were living in a world where the arm was the part of the body that poo came out of.
People have every right to request anything they want in order to feel safe, and every right to cancel a date if the other person declines. That being said, I view this very much like a father requesting a paternity test after his child is born. The precaution is logical, and someone who has done/will do nothing wrong has nothing to fear, but it is naive for the requester to ignore the very obvious implication of the precaution.
#6 - "Distract him rightly with the pommel."
I'm not raising it as an issue, just a point of fact. Although it could become an issue if we start to talk about it in terms of the extinction of humanity. Way too early to talk about it in those terms though, because a shrinking, aging, more technological population decades from now will be such a radically different society that talking about it now is like trying to predict the ramifications of peak oil in 1910.
Generally populations don't just keep growing. The world went from an average 5 births per woman in 1963, to 2.3 in 2022 with the downward trend likely to continue. The "replacement rate" is regarded to be around 2.3. The UN projects world population will peak at 10.3 billion in the 2080s, then begin a decline. Less than half the world's countries are above replacement, half of those are in Africa, and increasing education and prosperity will probably bring down birthrates there as elsewhere.
Canada's confederation in 1867 was partially driven by concerns of military annexation via Manifest Destiny and the expansion of the American standing army in the aftermath of the Civil War. Newfoundland and Labrador, the last province to join in 1949, considered and rejected the idea of joining the United States instead. Not being part of the United States has been baked into Canada's national DNA at every step of its national evolution.