Plus it's not just about total time between "I want food" and "Nom nom". There's also the matter of how usable that time is. On a good day it might only take me a few minutes longer to get fast food, but all of that time is spent behind the wheel and most of it is spent driving. Making a sandwich at home, on the other hand, only about a minute is spent actively handling food. The other seventeen minutes while the patty cooks are free; I can it spend doing anything I please. So instead of comparing twenty minutes for fast food vs. eighteen minutes for DIY, it's really more like twenty minutes vs. one minute.
Pizzasgood
joined 1 year ago
I don't know if this is the case for other people, but I have to be careful about using slurs in any context because the more I see or use a word the more likely it is to slip out in other situations. I'd never purposefully use a slur on somebody, but my word-choices are largely running on automatic when I'm angry. I just push intent at my mouth and then my subconscious picks out words matching that intent and feeds them into my tongue. If I push the intent "strong targeted insult" into that system, a slur could match those parameters and make it out my mouth before my conscious mind can catch and filter it. Entirely avoiding using slurs, and ideally avoiding even thinking slurs helps to avoid this happening (both by avoiding them entering my vocabulary-supply in the first place, and by building the mental reflex to immediately drop them like they're hot if they do pop into my brain).
A more society-level reason to discourage people from publicly using slurs even in discussions about them is to make it harder for bigots to stage "discussions" as excuses to loudly use slurs while in earshot of the people they'd like to use those slurs at.
People also get paranoid about automated (or braindead) moderation, or trolls who shame people based purely on the fact that a quick and context-free search of their post history turns up N uses of a slur. It's often easier to just dodge these kinds of problems than to fight them.
Wrap it in the wire, then spin one of them. That part's important! Won't do anything if you don't spin it.
Might not be that bad. My computer picks up way less dust sitting on my desk surface than it did when I had it on the floor, and I imagine OP's TV is mounted at least as high as that.
It doesn't say "a female behind." That would be fine. It says "a female's behind," using the noun form of female to refer to a woman. Normal people don't refer to a woman as "a female" outside of technical contexts like medicine or science. In casual speech it comes across as dehumanizing to call a person "a female," and this is a speech pattern that is primarily used by misogynists, especially the incel variety.
The preferred phrasing would have been "a woman's behind."
That said, giving the person a permaban over this seems pretty excessive unless there's additional context.
I’m one of the few here who seem to understand how people actually communicate in the real world
Nah. People in the real world don't use the noun phrase "a female" when referring respectfully to women. They say woman, lady, girl, gal, or something along those lines. The only times a woman is called "a female" are in technical contexts or when the speaker is a misogynist.
No it wouldn't. The paper is talking about structures on the kilometer scale. In particular, the abstract talks about a 3 km radius habitat simulating 0.3 g of gravity. This would require spinning at only 0.3 RPM. Even if they wanted Earth gravity, it would only require 0.55 RPM. Neither of those are anywhere close to strobe light territory.
EDIT: The above was referring to the University of Rochester's paper, not to Dr. Jensen's paper. I didn't realize they were two different papers. Dr. Jensen's proposal is for a slightly smaller 2.5 km radius station. This doesn't change my point any though. Assuming a worst case of Earth gravity would still only require spinning the station at 0.6 RPM. (You can actually go quite a bit smaller than either of those proposals without turning the thing into a rave. A 224 meter radius would still only need to spin at 2 RPM to generate Earth gravity, for example.)
I question that. According to Wikipedia, 50 shekels in ancient times would have been worth anywhere from five months to five years of unskilled labor. In parts of the USA that still use the federal minimum wage, that works out to between $6,000 and $73,000. In most of the country it'd be higher yet.
Ten nanoseconds of travel time for every three meters of distance, or roughly one nanosecond per foot.
Twas a tubular time.