thebestaquaman
@thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
- Comment on Anon gains a superpower 14 hours ago:
Thanks! I knew it was some famous quote from some famous guy!
- Comment on [deleted] 22 hours ago:
I’ve used this kind of short-range FM receiver in an older car to get Bluetooth capability. Just set it to some available frequency and save the channel as “AUX” or something, then you can switch from the radio to Bluetooth by just switching to that channel. Works like a charm.
- Comment on I see your bred sheeran, and I raise you with my 1 day ago:
The most purebred of steeds, Mr. Sheeran is.
- Submitted 1 day ago to [deleted] | 6 comments
- Comment on 'King of the Hill' Voice Actor Jonathan Joss Fatally Shot in Texas 1 day ago:
I’m all for pointing out everything currently and historically wrong with any country, but you’re doing the “intellectually dishonest” thing. The question wasn’t whether you could point out a shitload of bad stuff, but whether you could see any good.
The British empire did a shitload of terrible stuff, that doesn’t mean leading the way in global industrialisation and bringing hundreds of millions out of starvation was one of them.
Germany has done terrible shit, but starting the predecessor to the EU and thereby heavily contributing to the most peaceful and prosperous eighty years western Europe has ever seen is usually seen as a good thing.
The US has done terrible shit, as you point out. Being a catalyst and inspiration for the global spread of democracy is usually seen as a positive. Being a core actor in the formation of the UN, helping build a post-WWII rule-based world order is usually also seen as a positive. US aid contributing hundreds of millions of people getting access to education, vaccines, medicine, and catastrophe-release is usually also seen in a positive light.
- Comment on Anon gains a superpower 5 days ago:
Some other comment mentiones how it makes Frodo more influential and intimidating as they approach Mordor, allowing him to control Gollum with just his presence and voice. This isn’t very well portrayed in the movies. There is also mention of how a bunch of Orcs are scared off at the sight of Sam’s shadow when he is carrying the ring, as it appears to them as the shadow of a powerful elf lord.
As with other magic in Tolkiens universe, it is very diffuse. It grants the user great power, but the details of how it does so are very hard to pin down. We only get subtle hints.
- Comment on Anon discovers cigarettes 5 days ago:
They’re not in a situation that they don’t know better.
I would like to draw your attention to this truckload of stupid shit teenagers have done despite knowing better. Let’s not underestimate the capacity of the developing mind in making bad decisions despite having all information necessary to evaluate exactly how bad the decisions are.
- Comment on Anon gains a superpower 6 days ago:
Advanced technology is, to the uninitiated, indistinguishable from magic.
Some famous quote or something, can’t remember where I read it.
- Comment on Anon gains a superpower 6 days ago:
I seem to remember that a blizzard is also attributed to Saruman at one point. What I love though is that it’s not Saruman waving his arms and chanting some formula to cause the blizzard, but rather a situation where a blizzard was already possible and Saruman kind of “nudging” nature to ensure the blizzard hits in the right place and is especially violent. In a sense, it feels like the blizzard happens just because Saruman wants it to happen.
I seem to remember that it’s also implied that the ride of the Rohirim to Helms Deep should have been near impossible, but because Gandalf was with them they had the speed and stamina to make it. He doesn’t explicitly do anything, but kind of “wills” them to be faster.
- Comment on Anon gains a superpower 1 week ago:
This is one of the things I like about Tolkiens approach to magic: It’s very diffuse.
We understand that Gandalf and Saruman are powerful, but it is very unclear exactly how they use their power. We don’t see them bringing down castle walls or throwing lightning bolts. Some rare examples are when Gandalf breaks the bridge the Balrog is on, and when he breaks Sarumans staff. None of these are feats of magic that would lead you to think they are by far among the most powerful beings in middle earth.
When Gandalf battles the Balrog, the books state something like “they battled for three days”, without specifying how a physically frail (at least by appearance) Gandalf could defeat a Balrog.
With the ring(s), we just learn that they “grant the user immense power”, without ever learning exactly how Sauron would become unstoppable if he had the ring. I think it makes the story great, because it makes the story inherently character-driven, with magic being a diffuse “force” in the background rather than concrete abilities someone like Gandalf could use to teleport, shield someone, or set a building of fire.
- Comment on Literally 1 week ago:
“Do you need to” != “Have you”
- Comment on Anon can't go on a field trip 1 week ago:
I think that’s part of what made the series so popular though. She did a great job at letting the characters in the books grow up alongside the readers. Someone who read the first book when they were 7 could enjoy the last book when they were 14.
I haven’t re-read the books since I finished them sometime around that age, so I won’t comment on the world-building or writing outside of recalling that I was completely absorbed and fascinated when I read them.
- Comment on Anon isn't fooled by planes 1 week ago:
Helicopters leave the ground because God has gazed upon them, and became angered when He saw them among His beasts, on the lands of His creation. God then decided to expel the helicopters from His earthly kingdom to flutter helplessly in His skies. God did this to punish Man, whose hubris led him to climb into the unholy creation. The Lord would then strike down the abomination fluttering in His skies, condemning the heretics that had climbed aboard, in the belief that they could fool Him.
Thus the name “Jesus nut”.
- Comment on Anon isn't fooled by planes 1 week ago:
I don’t know how you got to “culture war and homophobia”? It’s literally a meme phrase that’s used (often sarcastically) in response to stories on the internet. Saying something is “fake and gay” is literally shitposting, I think interpreting any deeper meaning into it is a bit of a stretch.
- Comment on Anon isn't fooled by planes 1 week ago:
No, thats the helicopter. It’s said that it does not fly, but is repulsed by the earth because it is the hubris of man manifest.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
Exactly! I’m sick of people being labelled as racist because they’ve said some keyword that someone has decided makes them racist, even when their intents and opinions are clearly not racist.
Saying it’s “uncivilised” to publicly beat someone to death because they <insert whatever>, cannot be racist, because you’re not concerned with “race” in any way. Going further and saying that a country that allows such practices is uncivilised is, again, inherently not racist, because the reason for calling them uncivilised has nothing to do with the “race” of the people involved.
- Comment on Grieve with me 2 weeks ago:
I honestly enjoy it when this happens. It’s so satisfying getting to pull obscenely large wads of lint out of the port
- Comment on Anon discovers a cheat code 2 weeks ago:
But anon even said they were straight, so this might actually be the first true and straight greentext.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Exactly: I have friends that got a drivers license in th US, and the education/test is honestly a joke compared to what they require here, and it clearly shows in the number of driving-related deaths.
- Comment on Love this 2 weeks ago:
Drinking age is 18 in most of the world (with 16 also applying some places). Additionally, my impression is that it’s not as big a deal for 16-17 year olds to get ahold of alcohol in other places.
Where I’m from, the drinking age is 17, but it’s not uncommon or a big deal for people to get some beer or drinks for their 17th birthday party.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
You might want to check the details here: I know that in some European countries, you’ll have trouble renting a car at all with an American license unless you pass a driving test in a European country first to get certified. In fact, in several countries I don’t think an American license is valid at all until you pass a test. It’s probably worth checking out the details for Romania.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
For that exact reason some countries (my country included) don’t accept an American license unless you do a test here first.
Though IIRC, that applies for both manuals and automatics, because American drivers education isn’t really trusted here.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
I just want to underscore the crucial part of the monarch being apolitical. I believe the only Norwegian citizens that cannot vote are the royal family (whether by tradition or law I’m not sure).
I think it definitely has an effect of bringing cohesion and stability to a country that you have a formal head of state, or a “personification” of the nation, that is not tied to any political party. One thing is I foreign diplomacy, another thing is in bringing the country together during a crisis. In the latter case, the monarch is a figurehead that everyone can gather around, regardless of political affiliation.
- Comment on doctors 3 weeks ago:
When you look at how strongly obesity correlates with everything from back- and knee pains to weakened immune response to sleep issues and cardiovascular disease…
When a severely obese person has any of the above, it’s reasonable, scientifically backed diagnosis/prescription to say “these issues will probably go away by themselves if you lose weight”. This is about treating the cause and not the symptoms: When severely obese people are heavily over-represented among those with a certain disease or problem, you can try treating the symptoms, but should expect that they return rather quickly.
Of course, there are cases where the issues come from something else, but no matter who goes to the doctor with health issues, their first response will be to try to treat the post probable cause.
- Comment on Anon is a fighter 3 weeks ago:
I think a lot of the violence aspect is due to modern culture. We humans are taught our entire lives to not be violent, and it takes time to break down that barrier. Just like a well trained dog can be abused repeatedly without starting to fight back or even bark, because they’ve been trained to never bark or bite.
I don’t think there’s any reason to believe a human in a survival situation has any less capacity for violence than any other mammal, we’re just too similar to them, and violence is so ingrained in our reptilian brain. I just think most people are never pushed to the point where they behave like a cornered cat fighting back.
- Comment on Anon is a fighter 4 weeks ago:
Exactly, I guess that was what I was getting at. A cat will mess you up, but only as long as you tolerate it. (I love cats btw. would never dream of hurting one)
- Comment on Anon is a fighter 4 weeks ago:
I’m commented this elsewhere as well, but the strength of chimps is commonly overblown. An average chimp is about 1.35-1.5x stronger than a human of the same mass. Male chimps weigh in at 40-70kg, which means that a large, strong chimp is about as strong as an average 105kg man.
The bites are terrifying though.
- Comment on Anon is a fighter 4 weeks ago:
Only to a point though. They can break your skin, but they’re so small that you can literally throw them across the room. There’s no way a cat survives a human trying to kill them short of running away.
- Comment on Anon is a fighter 4 weeks ago:
IIRC the chimp thing is a bit overblown. I seem to remember that chimps are something like 1.3-1.5x stronger than humans per body mass. However male chimps weigh in at only around 40-70kg.
These are average numbers, so assuming a top ranked fighter is significantly stronger per mass than the average human (my amateur experience suggests that a well trained man is around 1.3x as stronger than average per mass). Matching a top ranked heavyweight fighter (≈110 kg) to a higher-end chimp means the human is probably around (1.3 x 110 / 1.5 x 70) = 1.35 times stronger than the chimp.
The top ranked fighter has a reach advantage, and while chimps are robust, I would almost call it absurd to suggest that a well landed kick from a top-ranked 110kg fighter would not injure a 70kg mammal.
The chimp has the advantage of biting, but even in a ground-brawl, I have a hard time seeing a chimp with the strength of an average 105kg man standing much of a chance against a heavyweight MMA fighter, just by knowing how completely one-sided that fight would be between humans. I don’t think the bites of the chimp can overcome the large strength difference and massive technical difference (chimps are similar enough to humans that ordinary BJJ techniques can probably still be used). All this is assuming that the chimp is able to get within reach without catching a crippling strike first.
Note that the above takes a higher end chimp vs. a top ranked fighter. Taking an average chimp and I definitely cannot see the chimp standing a chance. That would be like betting on an 85kg guy without fighting experience beating an MMA heavyweight. Even if the guy has a knife, he’ll probably be knocked out before even touching the fighter.
- Comment on Anon watches Game of Thrones 4 weeks ago:
I think you’re talking past each other. What they’re saying is that we have a biologically based aversion to mating with those we have been raised with, and that this aversion has arisen due to evolutionary pressure to avoid incest.
Of course, our body has no way of telling whether someone is a close relative or not, and evolution doesn’t “care” why we change our behaviour, as long as the new behaviour gives a higher chance of propagating our genes. Because of the historically high overlap of “people you grew up with” and “people you share a lot of genes with”, creating a biological aversion towards mating with those you grew up with serves as a good proxy for creating an aversion to incest (which is pretty much impossible to recognise without gene testing).
Their point is that it’s not “taught” behaviour in the sense of being culturally dependent, like we are taught that “everyone should have equal rights”, and “being naked in public is not ok”. Both of those are cases where there is a massive variation between cultures and through history, indicating that they are things we are taught, rather than being biologically ingrained.
