back in the day, TVs were a bit less portable...
32 karma · joined October 6, 2016
An example of this that was told to me is imagine you're going to dinner with the in-laws (or maybe your best friend's parents). What would their reaction be if you took out your wallet and offered to pay them cash for the meal? As opposed to offering to e.g. bring a bottle of wine or helping to set the table?
Offering to pay might be the "transactional" trade meant by the grandparent. While offering to contribute [food | labour | goodwill] is more of the trading time in a leisure situation.
I remember reading on acoup that in agrarian societies, often they relied on favours and communal sharing in times of bounty. So say if I butchered a hog today, all my neighbours might get some. Not in exchange for something directly, but in the expectation that when I fall on hard times or they get a windfall, they'll do the same for me.
There's probably some potential for freeloading here, but these sorts of communities are likely often right on the edge of survival. If someone develops a reputation for being miserly, that might well result in them starving (or freezing) because they're rejected by their neighbours. So there's an incentive to at least appear generous and pay your fair share.
It's amazing to feel emotions I'd normally not want to express in everyday life and just let them flow out. Rage, jealousy, lust. The music is such a great trigger to tap into these primal feelings, and then expressing them through movement just feels incredible. It feels real and amazingly cathartic, but the transience of the experience leaves no consequences.
I guess that's why there's the saying dance like nobody's watching. Because for many people, that expression of feeling strips us down and leaves our feelings exposed and vulnerable .
Haven't reread recently, but it was interesting at the time, and sort of helpful for keeping me motivated to get myself out of a bit of a rut. What parts of his writing did you find to be indicative of abandoning intelligent debate?
But there are differences in the sexes with regards to the process of conceiving and rearing a child. And it seems to me that a big part of our social constructs that were developed to deal with those differences can be reduced to "the man doing something expensive and hard to fake". Which isn't really that different from "the man proving she matters to him by buying something".
Because practically, aren't ideas tied to people? I don't think you can have an idea survive without people keeping it alive. So how do you express intolerance for "bad" ideas without letting that expression bleed into an intolerance for the people propagating the "bad" idea?
Also, I always assumed the lower renewable costs have come from economies of scale due mainly to China exploding it's energy production (which renewables makes a decent chunk of)
If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.
Another possible explanation is that we're currently print a lot of money without producing much stuff. So, inflation should be happening, right? But people can't really consume any goods or services. And so it's the prices of investments that gets inflated. (this explanation is a bit more iffy to me though than the first)
Some questions that might be interesting: What is the current downtime of electricity. What would be the desired goal for the new mixed / renewable grid? Given existing patterns of wind and solar generation, how much storage needs to be installed to reach this goal? How much would this storage be expected to cost at today's prices, and then with projected future savings from scaling (this could be used as a higher bound)?
The reason "running out" might be a valid concern is that the power grid is currently reasonably robust. Turbines are massive, with a great deal of inertia, meaning that even if something drastic were to happen, they can often cope with spikes in load long enough for extra production to ramp up. Wind and solar less so. Batteries presumably would be pretty great for ramping up, assuming we get enough of them on the grid. But then the economics needs to take into account the price of not just the renewables, but also generation.
As mortals, our experiences are limited. Having a good imagination and intuition allows us to extrapolate from these limited experiences to better understand the world we live in. Otherwise, discussions would be very limited and stilted indeed. Unless you never join in a discussion that you don't have direct (exact) personal experience in?
You might call the independent board "Parliament".
I try not to think about the topic too much because I like the occasional spot of cheese, but the number of calves that get slaughtered each year to enable milk production is mildly disturbing. Even worse, some countries have regulations against selling animals under a certain age, and the milk's worth more to a farmer than the month-old calf, so you end up getting piles of male calf carcasses thrown into pits for composting.
Was this an indication of the experience and initiative of his commanders and non-coms? So Caesar might decide on the overall approach, make sure all his commanders knew what that was, and let them figure out how best to achieve that based on the situation.
The word "probat" in the latin phrase has been translated in Wiki to "confirm", but could alternately be interpreted as "test" or "inspect":
What longbows were effective at was taking down horses and forcing your enemies to slog a long way on foot with their visors down (restricting vision and breathing). Making the fight a lot easier for your guys.
The end of armour really only came along with gunpowder weapons. Incidentally, gunpowder weapons also made longbows obsolete- largely due to the difference in training needed to shoot a gun (a few weeks on how to load) vs shooting a 100-pound warbow (years to develop muscles).
Not sure about minimum heights, but the timeline seems a bit off here...
It was meant to point out the deficiencies on both sides, but it is pretty awfully racist.
What might be a better way of rephrasing?
Btw: I'm not a Trump supporter. It was phrased to be more sympathetic to that side of the spectrum because, at least in my media bubble, people seem more hesitant to come out as open supporters of Trump.
If they were to openly express their contempt, then I know where they stand, and adjust my actions accordingly. If they fake expressions of gratitude, I can't be sure what their feelings actually are. Are they having a bad day, and trying to turn it around? Do they genuinely view me with distaste? If it's the former, it might benefit me to support this person. If it's the latter, I might not.
I can understand why it'd be good for a politician to present this ambiguity, but why is it good for you, the consumer of the public discourse?
On why we don't have more Shakespeares alive today- what if we do? Would we revere Shakespeare as much as we do now if there were 9 others who wrote at the same time? In any case, I'm not so sure that Shakespeare would have the job title "English literature professor" either. Maybe they're TV and film script writers that we don't hear about?