I don’t know what hotels you go to but my experience has been pretty mid across most of Europe. Bog-standard continental breakfast buffets. Croissants, orange juice, cereal, toast, all of mediocre quality.
Not terrible as it is, but you can likely get infinitely better breakfast by hopping over to any cafe across the street.
So weird that only 15% of Steam sessions are using controllers. I thought everyone had a controller. Most games are just better with a gamepad.
Even if that was true, not all games have the same number of players. Counterstrike and dota 2 regularly top the most played list on steam, and are terrible with a controller. It shouldn’t be surprising that most sessions have a kb/m if that’s what people are mostly playing.
I could not find the 47 grams figure on the page you linked, where is that stated exactly?
Pretty much the perfect form factor in my opinion. Put the back seat down when you need to transport cargo, up for people. Really practical. If you want to do camping trips or road trips where you need to move four people with cargo, you can get one with a towing hook.
The one thing it’s not great at in my experience is transporting babies around. There’s just not quite enough space for the car seat, stroller, two parents and assorted diapers and stuff. We can make it work, but it’s quite uncomfortable.
The essence of capitalism in one sentence.
There is a saying in business: Under-Promise, Over-Perform, or Over-Deliver.
SpaceX does the opposite of this.
It literally doesn’t matter though: everyone and their mother are buying falcon 9 or heavy launches. SpaceX accounts for almost 90% of the world’s launched upmass. They are simply the cheapest most reliable option out there and it is not close. The only reason not to fly on a SpaceX rocket is national security or wanting to keep your own domestic launch industry alive.
This wasn’t a SpaceX decision though. The guy who contracted them is the one who cancelled the mission. Mostly because the rocket is not ready yet and he was sick of waiting.
Another European here. Might be because I’m into baking but I don’t think a bagel should be classified as a roll. Bagels are boiled in water prior to baking which gives them a rather unique texture compared to rolls.
Sadly most commercially available “bagels” are not actually produced in this way.
you’ll see the huge difference between what you get in supermarkets (even good ones with good bakeries like Lidl) and a proper bagel.
I believe in large part this is because traditionally a bagel ought to be boiled in water and then baked in an oven. But to save labor costs, mass-produced bagels are often baked in a steam oven which doesn’t quite give the same chewy texture.
Another factor is, they will generally partly bake them in the factory, then freeze them and ship them off to your supermarket which finishes them off before putting it on the shelf.
Ironically though, I could see how a misogynist might conflate the two.
She did in fact say that and your link doesn’t refute that.
Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever.
If you want to claim she’s lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.
Andrea Dworkin was an influential feminist mainly in the '80 and '90. She was pretty clearly anti pornography, at least as it existed in her time (she died in 2005. Who knows what she might think of some of the stuff out there today). She’s also one of the most frequently misquoted feminists of all time, particularly by anti-feminists. she did not say all heterosexual intercourse was rape:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
The whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the “all sex is rape” slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don’t think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.
It’s important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the “all sex is rape” slander repeatedly over the years, and it’s been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.
First, Dworkin has never said that and did not think that.
Second, she died almost twenty years ago my dude. Intercourse was published in '87 during the second wave of feminism. Why are you misquoting her as an example of current mainstream discourse? And even if we’re going to be talking about feminist views of the 80’s, you’re conveniently ignoring sex-positive feminism. The sex wars were like, the defining feminist debate of that era.
And the upside down flying is simply due to gliding mechanics, no?
Not sure what you mean by this. But planes still generate lift when flying upside down. Wings with a symmetrical curve can also generate lift. Flat wings with no curve at all can also generate lift.
Pressure differences are definitely involved. That’s the only way air pushes against things, after all, so the fact that there is a lift force implies a pressure difference. However the cause of the pressure difference is rather complicated.
Some things to think about: symmetrical wings, with the same curve on bottom and top, can fly perfectly fine. Flat wings, with no curve at all, don’t fly quite as well but with the proper angle of attack can also generate lift. Additionally, planes fly perfectly well upside down.
If this curve explanation were complete, how could those things work?
Not really, no. ABBA is the first letters of all the band members’ names, arranged as a palindrome.
Although, chiasmus is kind of a grammatical palindrome if you squint real hard. So in that sense, kinda.
Fructose is converted into glucose by the liver, so it won’t solve much in the end.
But I looked it up. This is just a bunch of herb/fruit extracts. Ginseng, guarana, maca root, that sort of thing. Does nothing of course. And they charge $50 per bottle.
Is it safer to stay inside without AC or go outside in shade? Isn’t the ambient air temperature still too dangerous in the shade?
Humidity is a big factor, if humidity is low then evaporative cooling (e.g. sweating) is quite effective. Even more so in a breeze.
I feel like this doesn’t qualify as an ordering relationship, because of the circular nature of the wheel: for any two elements a and b (a ≠ b) on the wheel it’s both true that a is further clockwise than b and b is further clockwise than a (just keep rotating). This violates the antisymmetry property that an ordering relation should have.
You can fix it by establishing some point on the wheel as “least clockwise” (essentially unfolding it into just a straight line) but that immediately establishes a total ordering.
It’s not intended to be a carbon sink. It’s essentially intended to be a more carbon efficient way of producing margarine without having to grow e.g. palm oil and destroy forests. They thought, instead of making plants do the work of turning water and CO2 into fats, let’s just do it in the lab.
The basic science could work, although it’s usually tough to beat “put seeds into ground and wait” on pure cost. However the fact that they compare this to butter makes me sceptical. Given how wasteful growing a whole cow is just to make some milk fat, it’s easy to look efficient compared to that. They would compare themselves to sustainably produced margarine if they were honest.