IIRC Joanne stated in interviews that she intentionally made the game beyond uselessly broken on purpose, to spite football fans or whatever. She is, very fundamentally to her person, a spiteful bitch.
Further proof to the stupidity of this: in the recent video game, ya can't even play quidditch. The feature doesn't exist, because the game would be literally unplayable.
This is like boomers who fantasize about millenials breaking down in tears when confronted with a rotary phone or vinyl record or gramophone. The whole premise is ridiculous and always revolves around an item so iconic its use is immediately obvious to anyone who's ever, like, seen a movie.
Now I guess old cranky farts being old cranky farts shouldn't matter, if it wasn't for the fact that their unfounded opinions on Gen Z's supposed ignorance are already breaking UX patterns everywhere. The save icon is going away, and now it's a guessing game as to which button has replaced it. Is it the little cloud? The down arrow, or the up arrow? Is there even an icon? Who knows!
It's obvious from this excerpt that Adams was mostly talking about British Prime Ministers, who are elected by the government and do not wield much (if any) power beyond that of being a figurehead. Of perhaps the Royalty, who aren't elected but hold even less power and are even more of a distraction.
The US president, by contrast, is not elected by the government and has a shit-ton of power, and increasingly so as the US congress is less and less able to govern due to Republican infighting. The US president can start and win a foreign war in less time than it takes congress to even form an opinion on the matter.
Zaphod spent two years in prison for fraud, meanwhile the US president is protected by more military firepower than literal nukes and has a chain of succession longer than most Kings because the US government literally cannot function without a President.
Is that really a myth? Because it feels like the only time this point is brought up is to "dispel the myth", not the myth itself which I frankly can't recall having ever heard.
My theory is that it's actually a mix of angry dudes feeling excluded because they weren't explicitly included by women talking about their own struggles, and of the fact that men just generally don't talk about their struggles. So the coverage feels disproportional and the only time the subject gets brought up it's because some angry misogynist managed to weave it into an "us vs them" discourse.
Men's mental health is a huge conversation to have but it's extremely disheartening that in the mainstream conversation it always pops up through misogyny.
So in the spirit of actually doing something about men's mental health, here's some actual discourse on the subject
In electricity generation *. Probably not as good once you take all primary production into account, especially transportation.
However coal specifically is amazing. I thought "lowest consumption since 1757" was a typo, but it is not.
The Trans-European Transport Project has been ongoing since the '90s.
And since I was curious, here are the new guidelines adopted last week. Nothing revolutionary but an evolution in the right direction. I do find it personally interesting that the TEN-T apparently did not previously formally take into account military mobility...
I've seen this argument pushed unironically, and quite convincingly.
It of course depends on a lot of factors, and GHG emissions are not the only concern, but "short-circuit" consumption can (apparently, I did not run the numbers myself and read this a few years ago) emit much more CO2 than importing food from far away... simply because driving a car for 10 km to a farm for a bag of apples (or whatever) is a LOT worse per apple than the traditional container-on-ship->container-on-rail->semi-truck->local store supply chain which has a few times the fuel consumption of a car... but multiple orders of magnitude more cargo.
This is in reality not so much a dig on short-circuit consumption, which is obviously overall good, than a dig at how polluting cars are, even compared to cargo ships whose emissions we intuitively over-estimate. Still, it has stuck with me as a good example of the complexity of making a life-cycle emissions assessment.
Modern globalized economies are also often criticized to have gone too far into economies of scale, making them very brittle... as we saw in 2020/2021, as farmers re-discover every time one illness destroys an entire country's mono-culture, and as we fear we may discover soon with TSMC.
Furthermore almost every country (even very economically liberal ones like the US) heavily subsidizes their local agricultural sector to shield them from foreign competition, as it is of the utmost national security importance that a blockade on agricultural imports could not result in widespread famine.
Both of those estimates come from Hamas sources (well the 1000 people one IDK where you got that from).
JFC people you can criticize Israel without gobbling up a terrorist organization's fat propaganda dick. For now we just have no way to know how many people died in that hospital. Find another war crime to criticize Israel for, they're not that hard to come by.
I can't recommend reading A Chemical Hunger enough. These scientists are right, obesity isn't a willpower issue, despite common belief to the contrary.
TL;DR: We don't know why obesity is. Yeah sure you eat to much, you get fatter. But why do some people crave so much excess food? Why does their metabolism try so hard to keep the fat in? Why is the obesity epidemic worsening everywhere in the world, despite measurably improved eating habits over the last ~15 years?
The article goes at length to disprove mainstream myths like "not enough exercise", "too much shit in our food", etc. Truth is, we don't know what's happening chemically (same issue as the scientists encounter in the NYT article). However, the thesis of A Chemical Hunger is that there are good reasons to think that everyone has a "lipostat" which dictates how much fat we should have. Too skinny, and you will want to eat more and gain weight faster, and vice-versa. Yet for an increasing number of people, the lipostat is breaking.
The open question is, why? Right now, we don't really know, but we really aren't studying the biochemical causes of obesity hard enough due to this stupid belief that fat people are fat because they're "weak minded" or whatever.
Three ways that people actually use. YYYY-MM-DD, DD-MM-YYYY, and MM-DD-YYYY (ew).
AFAIK no-one does YYYY-DD-MM, DD-YYYY-MM, or MM-YYYY-DD... yet. Don't let the Americans know about these formats, they might just start using them out of spite.
More like "Germany plz stop occupying Czechoslovakia".
Much of Europe celebrated the Munich Agreement, as they considered it a way to prevent a major war on the continent. Adolf Hitler announced that it was his last territorial claim in Northern Europe. Today, the Munich Agreement is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement, and the term has become "a byword for the futility of appeasing expansionist totalitarian states."
"Ah, darts. We didn't appease the discourse hard enough. You can keep Czechoslovakia if you pinky-promise not to invade any more countries! If you do, we'll be forced, to, uh, you'll see, and you better believe we'll do it!" (Narrator: They didn't, in fact, do anything when Germany invaded Poland).
I need to hear what this connector would sound like when connected to an actual Dolby Atmos system. Do the crackles and pops get spatialized and make an impromptu symphony going around your room? The people must know!