overcast5348 @ overcast5348 @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

148

Joined

2 yr. ago

What you said makes sense. To provide context for why I am/was looking for the exact opposite --

I have a long string of failed hobbies and junk accumulated from all the stuff I've bought for them. I carry a ton of guilt because of this.

I guess I'm too hesitant to buy parts and have them lying around if I don't end up using them all if I abandon this too. That's the reason why I was hoping to buy a fixed set of parts for specific projects so that way I can at least convince myself that I used it all at least once.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thanks for the helpful links. :)

That's a lot of moved goalposts to justify the weird temperature scale logic but okay.

You've essentially justified that 0F and 100F are what they are because some old people died when it was 100F (most people, including the old are perfectly fine at this temperature all around the world) and because you can manage at 0F while wearing a ton of layers and not need a heat source (do all old people manage to survive just fine at 10F or 20F by just putting on some layers?).

Either way, this pointless conversation had gone on for way too long. Have a good day! :)

I'm saying that 0F is waaaaaaay more dangerous than 100F so the logic of those particular temperatures being the 0-100 ends of the scale can't be explained by how dangerous they each are.

Almost everyone would be fine staying outside for 30 minutes at 100F without no external help (shade, cool drinks etc). Almost nobody would be fine after staying outside at 0F without external help (parka, thermals etc).

To me, with absolutely no data, it feels lie:

• 0F is as dangerous as 140F (you're long dead if you're outside in both cases)
• 100F is as dangerous as 40F (mildly uncomfortable but safe for a while)

So calling 0F and 100F both "really dangerous" and using that to justify them being the respective points of 0 and 100 disingenuous. Like, use Fahrenheit if that's what you're used to - I use it too because that's what I'm used to. But I don't explain the insane system with "it's because the two ends are reallllly dangerous."

Lmao are you a penguin or something? Please tell me that you're exaggerating to make a point and aren't seriously saying that you're capable of staying warm at -10°C (14°F) "without an additional heat source."

Fahrenheit: let's use "really cold weather" as zero and really hot weather as 100.

I don't really have a horse in this race but this logic doesn't seem legit to me.

How is -17°C really cold weather AND 37°C really hot weather?

One is actively trying to kill you if weren't already dead by the time the weather got that bad. The other just makes your nuts stick to your thighs -- if you're in a humid place.

I'd agree with the logic if 100F was equal to something like 65°C. 🤷‍♂️

A lot of sports don't have a men's tournament per se. It's "women only" and "everyone allowed". So women can almost always go participate in a "men's" cricket match or whatever but they're at such a severe disadvantage physically that they can't get too far.

The only way to statistically (dis)prove all this is to repeat [this] (https://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/The-Man-Who-Beat-Venus-and-Serena-Back-to-Back.aspx) with a large enough sample set.

And whatever you do, don't watch the sequel. It's quality is the exact opposite of the first movie.

do you think every sport is about strength?

A lot has been written about why chess has separate tournaments for men and women despite physical strength not being a consideration for the game. Presumably, similar logic holds true for other non-physical-strength based games. I'd recommend you to look it up yourself, but the TL;DR (with some potential inaccuracies since it's been some time since I read it all) is as follows.

Historically women weren't even allowed to participate in chess tournaments because men considered them to be inferior and incapable of thinking as well as a man could. It was considered "ungentlemanly" to defeat a woman who "obviously" couldn't keep up with men. This led to a cycle of women not even learning the game because why bother, eh?

Now the thing about games like chess is that you can definitely learn it at any age and master it. BUT - doing so at a very young age tends to give people a huge edge over someone who started later (all else being equal - memory, effort etc etc). So, the same person starting at age 4 who'd probably be level 9000 Goku by the time they are 23 might never get to that level if they only start at age 35.

So, when women were allowed to participate in chess tournaments, there were very few of them who had started at the right age and could hold their own. This led to a need for a women's tournament to grow the sport.

How does that grow the sport? A little girl watching a woman on tv after winning a tournament might get inspired to pick it up. The girl might be able to point at the other women and tell her parents that she deserves to play chess too and that it's not just for boys.

These gendered leagues also give a "safe space" for women to participate in communities where people of different genders interacting is frowned upon. Etc etc etc.

Please do fact check me by looking up things on your own though -- it has been years since I went down this rabbit hole.

https://www.patreon.com/elisabethbik

I said "Oooooh right" before you. What now, buddy?

Oooooh right

Please do not visit https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/piracy

Oops, my bad.

Edit: I'm wrong, ignore the rest of my comment. Leaving it around for the world to see my shame.

An enclave is one country's land that's completely surrounded by another country's land.

The land border between Canada and Denmark is on an island, and each country "owns" half the island. There's no enclave involved here.

Thanks. Yes, something like the music app world be ideal.

Do you want them to raise the age of retirement? Because they'll make you work till you're a thousand before they all quit en masse.

Balancing your register‽