Christopher Landry's Liked Comments
Watch it again.
At about 6-7 sec, you can see the dog lie down in front of the car, and the car stops at that moment, still about 10 feet from the dog, unless this car has a 20 ft long hood we can't see.
This dog plays dead for a bit till the driver's back is turned and she's far from her car. Just far enough to be out of the path of the car if it were to start moving forward...
Then the dog gets up and runs into the vehicle. Then the car starts moving, which is nonsense, since the dog has no way to get the car out of park. The car starts moving before the dog gets completely behind the wheel, and definitely doesn't have the power to do anything like manipulating a gear shift out of park. Not having opposable thumbs is usually enough to prevent that.
Which means someone else is in the vehicle manipulating the situation in the dogs favor.
Which means this whole video is a prank.
Apologies if the author knew this was a prank before posting and I'm the idiot for not catching on to that.
At about 6-7 sec, you can see the dog lie down in front of the car, and the car stops at that moment, still about 10 feet from the dog, unless this car has a 20 ft long hood we can't see.
This dog plays dead for a bit till the driver's back is turned and she's far from her car. Just far enough to be out of the path of the car if it were to start moving forward...
Then the dog gets up and runs into the vehicle. Then the car starts moving, which is nonsense, since the dog has no way to get the car out of park. The car starts moving before the dog gets completely behind the wheel, and definitely doesn't have the power to do anything like manipulating a gear shift out of park. Not having opposable thumbs is usually enough to prevent that.
Which means someone else is in the vehicle manipulating the situation in the dogs favor.
Which means this whole video is a prank.
Apologies if the author knew this was a prank before posting and I'm the idiot for not catching on to that.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Somewhat minor semantic point:
"Can you drive fast enough..." A: No, it is not possible to drive any vehicle fast enough. Warp travel (folding space) would be the closest we'd get one day, and we haven't done the math to know how folding space would affect a speed camera.
"Can an object travel fast enough..." A: Yes, at greater than 1/6th the speed of light...
"Can you drive fast enough..." A: No, it is not possible to drive any vehicle fast enough. Warp travel (folding space) would be the closest we'd get one day, and we haven't done the math to know how folding space would affect a speed camera.
"Can an object travel fast enough..." A: Yes, at greater than 1/6th the speed of light...
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I have to wonder if this is a real life SCP... A mystery anachronistic soda machine that's perpetually stocked with strange flavors of soda...
Totally sounds like an SCP.
Totally sounds like an SCP.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Looking at the chart in comparison to the strength of the flavor of each condiment, it seems like the order is right on par.
- Mayo has the weakest flavor by a large margin
- Ketchup, Soy Sauce, and BBQ are about equal to one another (BBQ varies a little depending on style).
- Hot sauce, Mustard , and Steak Sauce are very strong flavors.
Looking at it that way, we would expect a regular person to go through a jar of mayo faster than they go through an equal size jar of mustard, simply because it takes a lot less mustard to blend with the various flavors in a sandwich. The chart looks like about 4x as much mayo is consumed, and tbh, I would readily say that mustard's flavor is easily 4x stronger than mayo, so 1/4 of it is necessary to be enough for balance of flavors in a dish that has both.
- Mayo has the weakest flavor by a large margin
- Ketchup, Soy Sauce, and BBQ are about equal to one another (BBQ varies a little depending on style).
- Hot sauce, Mustard , and Steak Sauce are very strong flavors.
Looking at it that way, we would expect a regular person to go through a jar of mayo faster than they go through an equal size jar of mustard, simply because it takes a lot less mustard to blend with the various flavors in a sandwich. The chart looks like about 4x as much mayo is consumed, and tbh, I would readily say that mustard's flavor is easily 4x stronger than mayo, so 1/4 of it is necessary to be enough for balance of flavors in a dish that has both.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@ JoeD: I'm not sure I'd ever heard that Lincoln believed it was going to die out on its own. That's very interesting, so I will try to find a copy of those letters you mentioned.
@ John Farrier: What if, as part of my overall alternate timeline, Lincoln decided that he wasn't going to be so gung-ho about keeping the Union together in the short term. So, instead of going to war over it, the South is given what they want: their own country. And that country slowly suffocates and dies out bit by bit due to its continued use of slavery. Other anti-slavery countries won't do business with them as much anymore, and any farmer that chooses machines over slaves can manage more crops for less cost, so they underbid the slave-owners in every market.
As the CSA dies out over the next several decades, the USA re-acquires whichever territories willingly come back to the fold. Of course, in the intervening time period, the USA would have passed anti-slavery laws, as well as establishing citizenship and voting rights, which the prodigal states must agree to before being readmitted. Imagine the welcome home celebration as each state returned!
Under these circumstances, I could envision a situation where, by about 1900, half the CSA seceded from itself and re-joined the USA. What's left of the CSA would be dying, as the cancer eats away, as you put it. That means mass emigration, as we have seen from Mexico for many years. Since I haven't heard anyone suggest that we forcibly take over Mexico just because many of their people are suffering, I don't see why we would forcibly rescue the CSA over many people suffering. We tend to have a National Security/Defense of the Nation reason to invade another country, like Bush did with the WMD's in Iraq (whether you believe he told the truth is irrelevant to this point).
It's also possible that if Mexico decided to allow slavery, part of the CSA would go that way. Or maybe they'd join Mexico, stay for a few decades, finally realize the grass is just brown and dying there, and secede their way back to the USA the long way.
We didn't have 50 states till Hawaii in August of 1959. I cannot bring myself to think that it is a bad thing to allow that to occur in a slightly different manner. I believe most, if not all, of the CSA would have come back to the fold by 1960.
Yes, that's 100 years later, but I think that would be an interesting alternate history, if nothing else.
IMO, allowing at least some of the southern states to break away without conflict would result, in the long run, in exactly what Lincoln said he wanted, "...a more perfect Union..."
@ John Farrier: What if, as part of my overall alternate timeline, Lincoln decided that he wasn't going to be so gung-ho about keeping the Union together in the short term. So, instead of going to war over it, the South is given what they want: their own country. And that country slowly suffocates and dies out bit by bit due to its continued use of slavery. Other anti-slavery countries won't do business with them as much anymore, and any farmer that chooses machines over slaves can manage more crops for less cost, so they underbid the slave-owners in every market.
As the CSA dies out over the next several decades, the USA re-acquires whichever territories willingly come back to the fold. Of course, in the intervening time period, the USA would have passed anti-slavery laws, as well as establishing citizenship and voting rights, which the prodigal states must agree to before being readmitted. Imagine the welcome home celebration as each state returned!
Under these circumstances, I could envision a situation where, by about 1900, half the CSA seceded from itself and re-joined the USA. What's left of the CSA would be dying, as the cancer eats away, as you put it. That means mass emigration, as we have seen from Mexico for many years. Since I haven't heard anyone suggest that we forcibly take over Mexico just because many of their people are suffering, I don't see why we would forcibly rescue the CSA over many people suffering. We tend to have a National Security/Defense of the Nation reason to invade another country, like Bush did with the WMD's in Iraq (whether you believe he told the truth is irrelevant to this point).
It's also possible that if Mexico decided to allow slavery, part of the CSA would go that way. Or maybe they'd join Mexico, stay for a few decades, finally realize the grass is just brown and dying there, and secede their way back to the USA the long way.
We didn't have 50 states till Hawaii in August of 1959. I cannot bring myself to think that it is a bad thing to allow that to occur in a slightly different manner. I believe most, if not all, of the CSA would have come back to the fold by 1960.
Yes, that's 100 years later, but I think that would be an interesting alternate history, if nothing else.
IMO, allowing at least some of the southern states to break away without conflict would result, in the long run, in exactly what Lincoln said he wanted, "...a more perfect Union..."
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I see a lot of alternate history surrounding the Civil War that pretty much just has the Confederate side winning instead of the Union.
Is there anyone who's written up an alternate history of what would have happened to slavery over time in the US if the Civil war had not happened at all?
The premise I'm curious about is basically this: Instead of trying to get the slavery question dealt with harshly and immediately, the US decided to continue doing what the founding fathers decided to do; let it slide for a while longer. In the meantime, technology continues to improve how farming is done, and plantation owners that adopt the new technology improve their production well beyond what slave owners are capable of matching. Slavery becomes less and less profitable. The war becomes one of businesses, as the slavery-run businesses get pushed out by the more profitable machinery based farming practices.
By around 1900-1920, most of the people who were slaves would have been freed simply by their owners going out of business. At that point there would be almost no slavery-based plantations still in operation. Then the US passes a law/amendment to abolish slavery and grant citizenship to everyone. Maybe they even combine it with granting voting rights to EVERYONE (including women), and no one really says nay about it because slavery just isn't worth protecting anymore. By extension, states can't claim that the federal government is usurping states rights, since no one really cares to defend slavery anymore.
I think it's an interesting alternative history, personally. Would it be better to have nearly 300,000 die in war and nearly tear the US in two, or let slavery die out on its own over a few more decades?
Is there anyone who's written up an alternate history of what would have happened to slavery over time in the US if the Civil war had not happened at all?
The premise I'm curious about is basically this: Instead of trying to get the slavery question dealt with harshly and immediately, the US decided to continue doing what the founding fathers decided to do; let it slide for a while longer. In the meantime, technology continues to improve how farming is done, and plantation owners that adopt the new technology improve their production well beyond what slave owners are capable of matching. Slavery becomes less and less profitable. The war becomes one of businesses, as the slavery-run businesses get pushed out by the more profitable machinery based farming practices.
By around 1900-1920, most of the people who were slaves would have been freed simply by their owners going out of business. At that point there would be almost no slavery-based plantations still in operation. Then the US passes a law/amendment to abolish slavery and grant citizenship to everyone. Maybe they even combine it with granting voting rights to EVERYONE (including women), and no one really says nay about it because slavery just isn't worth protecting anymore. By extension, states can't claim that the federal government is usurping states rights, since no one really cares to defend slavery anymore.
I think it's an interesting alternative history, personally. Would it be better to have nearly 300,000 die in war and nearly tear the US in two, or let slavery die out on its own over a few more decades?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
When you look at it like that, it isn't about how well each person can deal with the injury. It's a question of how well medical technology can handle the injury itself and then replace the lost limb afterward.
Reading the rest of the questions, I get that this isn't the point at all. The similarities between the two characters are kinda interesting.