Half the people who wave you through have weird little control fetishes. They're not being polite, they're pursuing feelings of power. They're the same people driving 5 mph under the speed limit in the passing lane to "keep other people from speeding".
I assume it’s just an example of how to create new topical words since it’s a lot easier to name an album than to get a word well-known enough to be eligible for the dictionary.
The artists all seem to be big names so I assume it’s their popularity rather than any history of quirky album names that’s decided the list.
I assumed it was because those musicians are popular enough that even if they released songs/albums with the title scheme akin to svnahshfhfbduj people would still buy them and know about them.
Yeah, that’s jsut straight up BS. I’m a Trauma Specialist and the thing that actually happens when you get hit by such a large object going at such a speed is that either stars or birds start circling around your head, accompanied by a large bump rapidly growing out of the affected area.
Also, a very common symptom is that the struck individual looses their memory. This can easily be treated by simply striking them again, with similar force.
Moral of the story, don’t believe everything you read on the internet
the thing that actually happens when you get hit by such a large object going at such a speed is that either stars or birds start circling around your head
and what do you think these circling stars do to others? they just further hurt anything in close proximity. have you considered that?
Today I triggered a guy who hates FTP and he gave me 4 whole nested comments ranting about how bad it is under the hood. Maybe you just don't wanna fit the proof.
This is a famous, centuries-old open question in math known as Goldbach's conjecture. Mathematicians widely believe that it is true,it has held true for every number checked up to 4 ⋅ 1018, but since it's impossible to check every number, we can't assume it's universally true
Way more than enough to make any thing true on the interweb these days
Oh no dude, that wasn't referred to you at all, I got and enjoyed your lighthearted humour, the comment was a just general consideration on the rhetoric I too often encounter when diving into a heavily controversial threads on the interweb; e.g. usually a rando with 5 figures karma points will suddenly pop up out of nowhere bringing up bro'mbastically that in his own singular experience the argument was true/false, therefore whatever was the hypothesis, or the wall of text of fact-checked peer-reviewed argumentation presented, it surely must be simply correct/wrong...and everyone lived happily ever after in demagogyland.
Remember when you had to rent your phone from the phone company?
Imagine if service providers still did that now, and you’d have to rent a special box from the internet company to access the internet…or one from the TV company to watch shows and movies. What a world.
The joke is that this is the state of American TV and Internet.
Sure some Cable ISPs let you bring your own modem, and Verizon Fios used to let you provision the Ethernet handoff of the ONT to go direct into your own router (if you chat up the install tech and are able to test connectivity with them there)…but the majority of users rent their modems and cable boxes.
I don’t have OCD but I definitely have this spinning thing. The worst thing is when you’re unsure if you are short a spin or not, it’s like having a sneeze stuck that won’t come out
Wikipedia (Near-Earth Supernova) says that a 25 ly away supernova would wipe out half the ozone layer so that’s probably the lower bound for what we want
That’s fair. It’s also a little misleading because there are other cosmic events that could happen that are both closer to us and potentially further away, and have in the past. I wouldn’t say we are immune from the hazards of space but my comment could have been construed that way.
Real answer: power density. Pound for pound, gas still contains more energy than our best batteries. The weight of energy storage is still a massive deal for anything that cannot be tethered to a grid or be in close practical proximity for frequent recharging, from rockets, planes and cars (sometimes) to chainsaws and lawnmowers (sometimes).
A pound of dead battery doesn't help me when I'm camping 10km from the nearest access to the power grid. (There are actually powerlines not even a kilometre from my favourite campsite, but those are going to be measured in kV, and so aren't really useful to me.)
Now, if I had enough solar panels in a mobile setup, probably folding out of a trailer, I could make it work, but solar panels are expensive.
Sure, but even then there are plenty of cases where a solar panel doesn't make much sense either. If you're cutting down a tree in the woods, would you rather grab your gas-powered chainsaw out of your truck and cut down the tree, or grab your solar-powered chainsaw out of your truck, spend minutes setting up solar panels to pick up the small amount of sunlight which makes it to the forest floor, and then cut down the tree?
The point is there will always be a market for ICEs until there are batteries with competitive energy density to gasoline. You don't see solar- or battery-powered trains or construction/mining equipment because these things need huge amounts of energy to work, energy which can be easily stored in a fairly small fuel tank (which can be quickly topped off when necessary).
Absolutely, just like there's some things a horse can do that a car just can't.
I don't plan on buying a horse or needing to do those things, and I don't think the vast majority do either.
The end result is that there will still be ICEs in niche applications, but those who know how to operate them and the supply chains that currently make them cheap and dominant will slowly die off.
A dead battery is far worse than an empty jerry can, atleast the jerry can is light. Hell there are even some real nice collapsible ones and thats not even accounting for fuel bladders. Electric is useful but it is also rather rigid as well.
Electric car batteries have 270 Wh/kg (converts to 0.97 MJ/kg)
Gasoline has 46 MJ/kg
So the math here says electric gives you (0.97 * 77%) 0.75 MJ/kg output and gas gives you (46 * 30%) 13.8 MJ/kg output. Plus, as someone else said, spent gasoline no longer weighs you down.
I like the idea of electric, and I want to see it replace gas as soon as possible, but fair is fair.
And let's not forget that fueling your car requires a tank, a decently sized pump and 2 minutes of your time. A quick charge will hopefully charge your battery to 80% in 30 minutes, while giving you less km and running 300kW of power through hefty cables and big transformers, consuming the amount of energy that a family house consumes in a few days.
(And yes, battery manufacturing and disposal consume enormous amount of resources)
Electric and gas have different situations in which they shine. Gas/diesel engines are just a bunch of steel and some control chips, optimized in more thana century of technological development if we couls develop carbon neutral fuel, electric cars would not be needed. Unfortunately, it woulf be difficult to do at scale of current fuel consumption. More (electric, battery-less) public transport, less road goods transportation, more nuclear, electric for vehicles that move 100% of the time (delivery and logistic vehicles) and carbon-free fuel for other kinds of vehicles (personal transportation) is a good balance, in my personal, ignorant, armchair opinion.
The argument that I've heard is that electric cars aren't actually cleaner because of the pollution caused by mining the minerals required for the batteries.
I'm sorry but I'm too lazy to dig up links to back up my claim. But you are correct in that electric vehicles pollute far more being produced than combustion engine cars, however the electric vehicles gain that back over it's lifetime if your charge from mostly non-fossil sources. The figures I have read says that over the lifetime of a car, electrics output 70% less CO2 than combustion cars, and that includes the production of each of the cars.
Nothing gets me closer to road rage than people waving me on when they have the right of way at a four way stop. Like yes thank you that's very polite, but we both could've been through this intersection if you'd gone when you were supposed to.
I try to never use "the finger" when another driver is being an ass. In that case I always just give them a thumbs down and a sad face.
I save the middle finger for people who are being "nice", especially when it is making things dangerous. I find it is the quickest way get them to just go.
I try to be coniderate while driving. Being predictable is safe. Deviating from the rules is dangerous. I think being safe more considerate than being "nice".
The only two actual rules that apply to four way stops is everyone stops and the first person to start moving gets the right of way. All that crap about the first arrival or person to the right doesn't get applied in real life. They're noble ideas, but just fucking go if no one else is.
Yes, but there are also a lot of times where they don't in my personal experience. If there's a question about who technically got there first - like two cars approach at roughly the same time - the rules aren't always followed as written by other drivers.
Not in my experience. Of course, as long as people are actually stopping, someone already stopped has an advantage. But that's a difference between East and West Coast US driving. In the East people come to a complete stop before moving again. In the West they'll slow down a lot, nearly stop even. So there's definitely regional characteristics. But the most common law is that of our childhood, possession is 9/10ths of the law.
Growing up, there was a four-way stop near my house that one of my friends absolutely hated. It was a pretty busy intersection, and he hated that drivers didn't seem to follow the rules that the person to the right goes first or whatever.
One time when I was driving, he was shocked like "what are you doing!? Its not your turn, you're gonna cause an accident!" when I went. I was like "what are you talking about?" I had driven through that intersection hundreds of times and never really thought about it. When I payed attention to the way the intersection flowed, I figured out the unwritten understanding that I and everyone else approached it with. It was basically just "stop and wait for a car or two to go before proceeding". There was no guaranteed order that I could come up with, it was just that everyone in the area seemed to understand.
Written rules are great if everyone is following the written rules. If you follow the written rules at that intersection you'll be fine, but you're likely to annoy someone for a moment. Nobody is going to be confused if you wait, just impatient.
I agree with you. More important than following rules is to pay attention and adapt as appropriate. If you're the only one following the written rules, there's a chance that you're the one acting unpredictably.
Yeah this comment should not be so far in the negatives. I much prefer calling someone a dickhead for going before their turn than screaming "YOU HAVE RIGHT OF WAY" at some dipshit who's holding up traffic because they feel like being nice
xkcd
Top