• 0 Posts
  • 675 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • Ronaldo’s ego is incredible, and he’s almost always looking out for himself in everything he does. But, you can’t deny that he’s one of the best ever players. And his charisma means he’s a great choice for something like this where he has to perform and interact with all the “scientists”. Someone like Messi could do the same kinds of moves, but he wouldn’t be able to chat with the presenters and “scientists” between events in a natural way. (P.S. I love that they got someone named Ronald to be the ordinary guy who couldn’t do anything useful, that was just funny.)

    I also think Ronaldo genuinely cares about all the biomechanics and all that, as long as it’s something that applies to him, and that he could use to make himself better. A lot of other players just play on instinct and don’t want to have to think about it.


  • Hearing is definitely part of it, but I imagine it’s only hearing the sound of the ball being kicked. After that it’s going to be far too quiet to hear until it gets close, and he’s obviously reacting long before that. Maybe hearing helps him adjust in the last tenth of a second, but he’s not hearing the ball’s entire flight.

    As for the body mechanics of a pitch or a kick, it is amazing. Like, a proper powerful punch involves leg muscles, hip muscles, waist muscles, chest muscles, and only then do you start to get to the arms. For most of us, the best way to realize how coordinated everything has to be is to try to do something with your wrong arm/leg. Everything that flows naturally on your strong side is just completely wrong on your weak side.





  • It’s amazing the stories that Americans tell themselves about the American Revolution. They pretend that the “founding fathers” were heroic idealists standing up for honorable values against an evil despotic regime. The truth is much more complicated.

    A major goal of the 7 Years War was about controlling the colonies in the Americas. Had the French won those wars, the modern people of North America would probably speak French. Look at how many US places still have French names, and especially are named after the French king: Louisiana, Louisville, St. Louis, Mobile, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Detroit, Lafayette, Arkansas, Illinois, Calumet, Decatur, Boise, Montpelier, etc. But, the French lost the war, so the English took over all that territory. Fighting that war was incredibly expensive, but it was worth it for the English because they now controlled a whole new continent with all its resources. To pay for that war, they levied taxes. The English colonists in the US, who were largely the beneficiaries of that part of the war, decided they didn’t want to pay those taxes, so they rebelled. They got the benefit of a continent won for them by English armies, but without having to pay the bill for that fight. Now, again, it’s complicated. The English armies were integrated with the colonial armies. George Washington was initially an officer in the British army (and was part of starting the French and Indian wars, which became the 7-years-war). The US colonists were part of the force that fought against the French and their native allies.

    Anyhow, it was complicated. But, the end result was that after a war that took place both in Europe and in the Americas, the British crown had a huge debt. I have no idea what proportion of that debt was due to the part of the war fought in Europe vs. the part of the war fought in the Americas, but overall there was a big debt and the English crown tried to tax whoever they could to pay for it.

    Was the English king a tyrant? Sure. Did the Americans have fair representation in the English parliament? Probably not. But, their main reason for rebelling was the same one that is nearly always the cause of rebellions: the rebels are in an area that’s wealthy for some reason, and they don’t want to have to share that wealth with the rest of the country / empire. In fact, it was suspected that the colonists chose not to send representatives to the colonial assembly partially because they knew that if they did that it would undermine their “without representation” argument, and the real issue was that they simply didn’t want to pay taxes.

    As for the English system being tyrannical, the reality is that it has been a very slow, gradual change from an absolute monarchy to a ceremonial one. The English crown is significantly less wealthy than Elon Musk, and arguably has a lot less influence on British politics than Musk does on American politics.

    By the letter of the laws, the British system is still more classist and controlled by money than the American system. But, is that true if you look at the actual real way that power is used? It doesn’t seem like it to me.




  • merc@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyzCalculatable
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    For one thing, just displaying the latest number isn’t useful if you’re doing anything complicated. For another, many calculations involve using the same number over again multiple times. Some calculators have a memory entry, but many don’t. There’s a “C/CE” but there isn’t a backspace, so if you get one digit wrong, you have to start that entry over (and hope you chose the right option among C/CE/AC/CA/etc. If you accidentally hit the wrong operation key (multiply, divide, plus, minus) AFAIK there’s no way to clear the operation. A lot of common math operations involves parenthesized expressions, but if you’re using a basic calculator you have to instead enter things in an unnatural order. It’s pretty common to end up in a situation where the calculator is displaying B and you want to do A/B but you can only easily do B/A. Fancy calculators have a 1/X button to fix this, but if not you’re out of luck. Same with having B and wanting to do A-B but only being able to do B-A. You can fix that by multiplying by -1, but again, it’s a UI issue that you can’t just say “hold onto that number for a second because I want to enter another number and then use it”.




  • On one hand, bio power armor gives you an edge in mass and possibly strength. On the other hand, if the skeleton is moving, it’s animated by magic, and who knows what the limits of its magic are.

    Also, while skin is “armor” of a sort, it’s pretty pathetic armor. What were some of the earliest knives used for? Cutting flesh, a.k.a. bio armor. What were some of those early knives made from? Bone.

    And your bio armor: what is it protecting? Vulnerable blood vessels and organs inside the body. What vulnerabilities does a skeleton have? Probably none?

    Then there’s tendons. Your knee bone’s connected to your thigh bone, as the song goes. How? Tendons. A skeleton lacks tendons, so theoretically it’s a lot easier to disconnect a skeleton’s bones from each-other. But, then again, magic.







  • It makes a radically beneficial structural change, while still being easily understood by anyone that’s used to capitalism.

    Yeah, that’s important. It also doesn’t require a revolution to attain, just reforms of the current system. Admittedly, reforming the current system would be hard, but theoretically it wouldn’t have to be bloody. I think some people who have never questioned the economic and political system in which they grew up can’t even conceive of anything other than capitalism. Other people who have thought about it would worry that any attempted revolution might fail and we’d fall backwards into something much more like feudalism if not outright tyranny.

    it’s important for everyone to have somewhere they can exist without having to get permission

    Yeah, as bad as Feudalism was, at least serfs couldn’t be kicked off “their” land. They were tied to the land, so they weren’t allowed to leave, but the manor lord also couldn’t kick them out.

    As for all land being owned, it is, and it isn’t. In commonwealth countries there’s a lot of crown land. In the US there’s a lot of government owned land. In cities there are a lot of city parks. In a sense all that land is owned. But, in another sense, it isn’t. It’s land that nobody’s allowed to build anything on, unless we collectively (via our reps) decide they are. In practice it’s not that simple, but in theory it’s effectively land that isn’t owned, at least by individuals. I’ve often wondered what effect it would have on homelessness if there were land in cities where everybody was allowed to live if they wanted. I imagine it would basically end up as a favela. Not great, but probably better than homelessness.


  • merc@sh.itjust.worksto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneAnarchist Rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    It still sounds like capitalism to me. It’s just more traditional capitalism. I’m pretty sure that the first mechanical looms were in factories where the owner was actually present in the factory, trying to make sure the machines kept working.

    I’d even argue that ownership of land isn’t really capitalism anyhow, it’s more similar to feudalism. Capitalism involves buying capital and using that to transform raw materials into a finished product that can be sold at a profit. Feudalism involves charging someone rent for occupying land you own. Capitalism involves competing with other capitalists for more efficient processes, more cost-effective machines, and so-on. Landlords can’t have “more efficient” land. A capitalist has to use their machines to generate profits. If the machines are idle, they don’t make money. A landlord does nothing at all, then collects rent money.

    So yeah, ban rent, or severely limit it. Require that a capitalist owner is actually physically present and involved in day-to-day operations, and you’ll completely eliminate billionaires, probably even centi-millionaires.