I know this isn’t the best place to ask this. But can a fellow Christian explain this story me? (I know the story I just don’t understand how the Bible says this is where languages come from when we can trace history to figure out)
Honestly, like Noah's ark and the seven day creation story, we reconcile the scientific results with the Biblical account by not taking the Bible version literally but as an allegory.
Basically Alistair but competent
Alistair's competent, he just doesn't want people to think he is because then that means responsibilities lol.
"Alistair with maturity" then :p
Mirina Sirtis herself thinks she was a useless character.
It's a bit disappointing because Star Trek is supposed to be a progressive show where sexism and racism are things of the past, but the female characters tend to be stuck in some pretty old fashioned stereotypes. Troi's role is basically to be pretty and have emotions. Even in Voyager where we had a mature kickass scientist woman running the show, they had to bring in a sexy catsuit robo-babe after a couple of seasons. Of course, I was like 14 when I watched it so I didn't mind at the time, but as an adult I can kinda see how there's a bit of an issue there.
Kira and Dax were written so much better. Kira was a bad ass, dax was smart, wise, and well arounded.
Kira kicked butt.
Load more comments
This is a mindset I need to get myself into, that's a great way of putting it. It's so hard to change but I'm going to do whatever it takes. I just hope I can do this and actually be the kind of person I'm proud of
Also, get off reddit and get that thing done that you were actually going to do before you got on reddit.
Nothing wrong with using reddit to kill some time here and there. Maybe use it as a reward.
Oh yeah I mean I'm not against reddit. But it can be a big time suck if you let it.
Well, yes. He's a child from a minority group, it would be exceptial if he spoke more than one language or without an accent.
That's kind of racist? Just because he's Maori doesn't mean he's any worse at learning accents than anyone else. There are plenty of New Zealanders, young and old, Maori or Pakeha (white), who are on American TV shows & movies putting on American accents. Cliff Curtis plays a Maori-American in Fear the Walking Dead - he's actually in loads of American movies, never with his kiwi accent. I think Temuera Morrison puts on an American accent in Speed 2 (though he keeps his normal accent in Star Wars). The kid who plays Archie in Riverdale is a kiwi of Samoan decent and puts on an American accent too. Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords is Maori. Taika Waititi directed Hunt for the Wilderpeople and puts on an American accent for Green Lantern.
I mean, the head prefect from my somewhat pretentious high school was Maori. Yes, there are major social issues in New Zealand where Maori are more likely to have low incomes, poorer education, or even be imprisoned. But there's plenty who go to university, travel, and/or work overseas. The Maori are like 15% of the population, and other Polynesians are like 7% of the population, so it's not like there's a tiny number of people living in mud huts on the coast or something.
It's not what I said, he's a kid whose had little time to master other accents then his own. I wouldn't expect a ten years old from the deep south to bust out a Philly accent is all I'm saying. If you want to hear this kid act in other accents you got to wait a couple of years for that.
Anna Paquin was putting on a southern accent at about the same age in The Member of the Wedding. And they're both from the pretty much the same area - Lower Hutt vs Upper Hutt.
The options she had:
Kill her friend and save everyone else on the entire platen, including herselfe and her family.
Not Kill her friend, so she, HER FRIEND and the whole world will die.
I hate stupid decisions in movies.
The point was "Maybe if we're willing to do this to each other, we don't deserve to live on as a species", not that she thought she was saving her friend somehow.
I'm always confused when I see uses of the word "dialect" like this. It seems to me that even colloquially, "dialect" refers to a variety of a language. That's how I would have defined it long before I knew anything about linguistics. People might attach some bullshit value judgment to it, but a dialect still has to be a dialect of something else. But a lot of people featured on this sub have a different definition, apparently.
In this old video there are some people from Yorkshire referring to their way of speech as "talking in dialect".
Catholicism is anti-intellectual? Catholicism is probably the religion most famous for systematic theology, the faith that literally enshrined Thomism as its preferred philosophy! I don't know who you've been talking to, but the classic criticism of Catholicism is that it's over-intellectual and not mystical enough! You should find some good Dominicans to talk to, or check out the "Pints with Aquinas" podcast.
Anglicanism as ever takes something of a middle way, less enamoured of systematic theology, but producing many wonderful spiritual writers and the occasional great theologian.
I guess the point is that as Anglicans we are free to go beyond Aquinas and to critique a lot of what his says, rather than take it as articles of faith. We can look into the history and point out the strong Neoplatonic influences. We can also look into the early history of the church and find that many of the claims that Catholics make about the early papacy and the early church founders are pretty dubious. We can read Jerome and agree that the structure of the priesthood is an earthly concession. Calvinists can read Augustine and agree with his belief in predestination. By not taking this works as authoritative, we are free to take a proper academic study of them, and make up our own minds about what they say, rather than trying to use fairly dubious arguments to try to resolve how they all actually somehow agree with modern Catholic theology after all.
This is literally all of 9-12 grade math, in one picture, instead of, you know, four fucking years.
This is kind of the thing about maths and physics at high school and much of undergrad. The amount of stuff you have to learn is actually very small. The hard part is developing a proper intuitive understanding of it so that it clicks. That's why you get such a huge range of maths ability: either you get it and it's trivial, or you don't get it and it's just a bunch of incomprehensible nonsense that you maybe have figured out how to fake through to get the right answer for some reason.
Comics aren’t my wheelhouse but aviation is.
A parallel is that Orville Wright (of wright brothers) was alive when Chuck Yeager was the first person to break the sound barrier, in 1947.
Bram Stoker's wife lived long enough to see movie adaptations of Dracula. She had a successful legal dispute over the film Nosferatu for being an unauthorised adaptation.
This made a huge difference. We got an internet consultant that talked us through it. She explained that if they're fed well during the day they can sleep through the night. They just have to learn that their bed is safe for them. It's tough on the parents for the first 2 or 3 days but then it starts paying of. You'll question it at first but at the end you'll wonder why you waited so long. Our guy is 8mo now and we did it when he was 6mo. If he wakes up, he just hangs out until he goes back to sleep and Mom and Dad sleep through it.
It seems cruel at first, but it's really about teaching the kid how to settle herself back to sleep. Before we tried it, she was waking up about every 3-4 hours, and we were feeding her to sleep because we assumed she was hungry. The first night we tried it, she cried for 30 minutes, and then slept for about 10 hours. I think we were probably overfeeding her when all she really wanted was to go back to sleep. And it seems like that's something they have to be left alone to figure out, even if they're crying because they find it difficult.
See your problem is you used two if statements when you should have used three.
Darwinism will find a way?
The problem is that the results affect society in general more than individuals. It works like this:
If each infected person infects two more people on average, you have an outbreak that spreads exponentially. If you have a vaccine that is 80% effective, and everybody takes it, then each infected person infects 0.4 people on average, and the outbreak quickly dies away. Even if 90% of people take the vaccine, that's still about 0.56 people infected, and as long as it's less than one you're good. But if you get down to like 50% of people getting vaccinated, then each infected person infects more than one person on average, and you have an exponentially growing outbreak again.
Many of these vaccines don't make you completely immune, they just make people immune enough to quash any big outbreak. This means that enough people don't take the vaccine, they're going to cause outbreaks that will not just infect people who can't or haven't taken vaccines, but even infect people who are vaccinated. Similarly, if there are enough vaccinated people, then we can carry a small number of unvaccinated people, because outbreaks will be squished early enough that they probably won't reach them anyway.
So the Darwinism doesn't really come into it - whether an individual gets sick and dies isn't that tightly tied to whether they are themselves vaccinated. Unvaccinated people could cause vaccinated people to die, and vaccinated people can cause unvaccinated people to live. Which unfortunately means they're going to keep on believing that it's okay to be unvaccinated because the effects aren't immediate and obvious.
So, in the above article, it's hard to say whether "in future" is a typo or means from now on if we don't know the author is American or British?
"In the future" is always okay.
"In future" does not mean "in the future". It means "from now on". Its meaning is continuous - it's not just talking about some point in the future. This usage is also only common in Britain.
"In the future, we will have flying cars" - okay for everybody
"In future, we will have flying cars" - not correct, unless we will start having flying cars right now, and only if the speaker is British
"In future, I would prefer if you kept quiet in meetings" - correct in British English, meaning "from now on, keep quiet in meetings"
"In the future, I would prefer if you kept quiet in meetings" - correct in both British & American English, although slightly odd in British English (it could be understood that maybe you don't have to be quiet right now, just in some meetings in the distant future)
Use the first one - "I wish the holidays would come". I think the second one is technically correct, but I had to think about it. So it's not very natural.
Ghosts exist outside of time and space, so thats why they know the future. This comic is entirely inaccurate about ghost abilities.
I think I see where you went wrong
The all ighty oller?
Here are a few more.
I really just throw them together. The one that kicked them all off was better but seems to be lost for now.
Just fold the paper a few times and work out a plan, the more folds the more steps you can/need to add.
It is a tonne of fun and makes doodling much more enjoyable to me.
Aww man I'm down with anything creative that costs approximately zero dollars
Not only that, but you’re never going to convince a studio to make a movie that’s totally dependent on people having seen a TV show.
They want movies to appeal to a broad audience. Making a continuation of the final episode of Voyager would never fly.
Even with movie-only franchises, you have people asking “Do I have to have seen the first one to see this one?”
It doesn't have to be that dependent on the TV show. If you do a "getting the band back together" film then you can (re)introduce the characters one at a time for people who don't know them. I'm imagining a movie where they're all unhappy with their lives on Earth after ~20 years, and the Doctor goes around reminding everybody about how great it was to explore the galaxy, and they go off in a transwarp ship to explore the Virgo Cluster or something.
How do they survive in Lapland but not in northern Québec? Aren't the climates very similar?
I'm trying to do a comparison here but the the problem is that the towns in Northern Québec are so small that they don't have climate data on every website, so I can only find towns are are pretty southern. The entire region of Nord-du-Québec (which is 40% bigger than France) has a smaller population than Rovaniemi, the administrative capital of Lapland. I guess that in itself kinda demonstrates why there's less rats there?
Rule one: Don't break production.
Rule two: If you break production, DON'T PUKE UP A FUCKING STACK TRACE, THANK YOU NOW EVERYBODY KNOWS WHICH BUILD OF TWENTY FUCKING MIDDLEWARE STACKS WE'RE RUNNING AT LEAST FOUR OF WHICH HAVE PUBLISHED VULNERABILITIES WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?
I may have been distracted when I wrote that second rule.
./game > output.txt 2> /dev/null
Errors, what errors?
On another note, (2) doesn't really matter that much if you're dealing with something where security is pretty irrelevant - e.g. a single-player game or a numerical software package or something.
I feel like I grew ten times more British by just watching this
Scotland is in Britain. Britain is the whole island.
No, sorry, that's dumb. If you have no powers or money or lead an army, that means any fool can kill you or your loved ones in your sleep. You just can't survive without a secret identity. The whole schtick hinges on the element of surprise and/or mystery.
He does have powers that make him almost impossible to sneak up on.
But the point is that even though they probably could win, they're too scared to even try.
He has been wounded before...a lot. The most competent of his foes know his moveset quite well. Bringing any one of them along with a team of hired guns pretty much guarantees mission success. Not only that, but by learning the secret identity, it becomes easier to learn about him and demystify him !
There are very few things that validate the existence of vigilantees.
1. He has info that cannot be shared by the official governing bodies, or they cannot act upon them.
2. He has to be competent enough to swiftly execute key missions by himself and then escape the scene so as reinforcement or police do not capture him.
If your identity is known, acquiring info becomes more difficult or less viable. Also, DD has frequently stopped fighting for long periods of time to rest, so that he will be more effective or to trick the criminals into feeling safer. None of these can happen if your identity is known.
Yeah, I mean he does get his secret identity back in the end anyway, so you have a point.
Oh it’s just Lorne Michael’s alt account. Ignore him.
It rides a very fine line between genuine, sarcastic, and astroturfed.
Took me wayyy too long