Discount_gentleman t1_jeaux0g wrote

Yep, I always read the labels and it helps my appreciation. I need something to connect me to what are often abstract concepts. Most of the art in museums or galleries is from a person different enough in time/place/culture that it takes me more time that I have available to cross that gulf and understand the subtleties in what they are saying. Labels help.


Discount_gentleman t1_jclgbdr wrote

Not to riff on this too much, but the design is quite elegant. It is the prow of a warship, so it cuts through the water cleanly, presenting thin lines that the water slides by. But when faced with a solid object like a ship, it acts as a solid rectangle. It hits with all the weight of the ship as a hammer or mallet, not as a spike, designed to shatter but not to penetrate. And back in the day, ships would be more likely held together with mortise and tenon, not nails, and be vulnerable to being snapped. The target would be swamped in just a few minutes from multiple small leaks and become unmaneuverable, knocked completely out of action.


Discount_gentleman t1_jcl2cgi wrote

Historically, getting the ram stuck was a serious problem. I have a vague memory of reading that proper tactics dictated back-rowing (i.e. tapping the breaks) just before impact, with the goal being more to deliver a shock that pops every joint in the target, rather than busting through and getting your ram deeply embedded in the target.

However, I've had a few beers since I read that, and so it might be worth checking with a better source.


Discount_gentleman t1_jbl0jtn wrote

Was this not well known? I learned this in junior high ("the United States went into the Civil War a plural and came out a singular"). It was an intentional process that was understood at the time.


Discount_gentleman t1_jaiq3lj wrote

We focus on what is important to survival, and for victims of this type of trauma, objects aren't the threats or resources. Threats or resources are people and their emotional states. I suspect this is related that I've repeatedly noticed, that also anyone who calls themself an "empath" has childhood trauma. They aren't sensitive or blessed or naturally in tune with the universe, they are simply hyper-reactive to a certain thing as a method of survival.


Discount_gentleman t1_j901ara wrote

Speaking as someone who hates oil companies, I disagree. The energy transition is going to be very messy by definition. There are lots of factors and they all have different time scales, which makes it impossible to match them up. Oil and gas investments have minimum payback periods of 5-30 years, and so they can't respond to short term events, even intense ones. As global demand for fossil fuels falls, it will get even messier.

I'm not saying the fossil fuel companies are all acting in good faith, I'm saying it doesn't matter. They couldn't match supply to demand effectively even if they wanted to.


Discount_gentleman t1_j2n1y0p wrote

The problem, of course, is that words like "democracy" and "dictatorship" are such poor categorizations of countries as a whole. The US is not "a democracy" by any objective standard, nor is the category of "dictatorship" (exclusively used for countries on the official enemies list) particularly clarifying or helpful in this context. Our media is EXTREMELY concentrated and they all have extremely similar views, especially on international events. Again, your comment is an example of people who cannot look into the mirror.


Discount_gentleman t1_j2lc65s wrote


Discount_gentleman t1_j15vir4 wrote

In the US, many states either frown upon any discussion of climate change in public school textbooks. If publishers can't get the textbooks approved for important segments of the public school market, they won't bother publishing them at all.


Discount_gentleman t1_j0of335 wrote

Most are involved on a "brief, intermittent basis." Despite the current hysteria to try to portray sex work as "trafficking," most sex work is voluntary (as much as any work is voluntary) and is a limited means to an end, not a trap or a life.


Discount_gentleman t1_iralb4p wrote

I don't doubt the conclusion at all, but this sentence seems to make the study meaningless:

>Even without adjusting for any potential confounders like age, social demographics like race and sex...

If you don't adjust for confounders, what have you measured?