Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Truths I can’t quite believe

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    No pair of shoes should cost $500 unless they’re custom made. $200, maybe, but it’s still a sin because in almost all cases, an innocent animal suffered for that.

    Civilization was a mistake.

    Comment


      #52
      I still never know when someone says "I don't understand how people can get excited about golf", whether they mean watching it - which is incredibly dull except for the pointy end of a very few tournaments; or if they mean playing it, which is great fun (if frustrating).

      Comment


        #53
        I've spent $180 on a pair of Blundstones, but that's probably the most I've ever spent. I don't do 'hard' shoes like guys who dress up do, but a few pair that have caught my eye. Those ones that you see on the opening credits of Boardwalk Empire are pretty flash, but I'd never pull off that look.

        Comment


          #54
          Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
          I still never know when someone says "I don't understand how people can get excited about golf", whether they mean watching it - which is incredibly dull except for the pointy end of a very few tournaments; or if they mean playing it, which is great fun (if frustrating).
          I don't understand how anyone who enjoys one sport (let's say football) can say they don't understand why people are excited about another sport (let's say golf). When you think about it long enough, all sport is utterly pointless in the end. It only matters as much as we decide it matters.

          Comment


            #55
            Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
            I still never know when someone says "I don't understand how people can get excited about golf", whether they mean watching it - which is incredibly dull except for the pointy end of a very few tournaments; or if they mean playing it, which is great fun (if frustrating).
            Watching it is completely impossible to enjoy for anyone. People who say they do are lying. Definitely.

            Playing? No idea.

            The whole thing, though, is, you know, worse than Hitler.

            Comment


              #56
              Originally posted by WOM View Post
              I've spent $180 on a pair of Blundstones, but that's probably the most I've ever spent. I don't do 'hard' shoes like guys who dress up do, but a few pair that have caught my eye. Those ones that you see on the opening credits of Boardwalk Empire are pretty flash, but I'd never pull off that look.
              Oh yeah, wingtips like can be very cool. But they can also be fairly dull. I've got a brown pair which are kinda blah.

              Comment


                #57
                Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
                I still never know when someone says "I don't understand how people can get excited about golf", whether they mean watching it - which is incredibly dull except for the pointy end of a very few tournaments; or if they mean playing it, which is great fun (if frustrating).
                I meant watching it, by and large. I’ve never played it.

                Must admit that when I mentioned it upthread, I didn’t think it’d kickstart two (probably more) pages of golf-talk...

                Comment


                  #58
                  Originally posted by Jah Womble View Post
                  Must admit that when I mentioned it upthread, I didn’t think it’d kickstart two (probably more) pages of golf-talk...
                  Shh....putting.

                  Comment


                    #59
                    Truths I can believe - than on OTF this became a clothes and shoes thread.

                    Comment


                      #60
                      I have two pair of golf shoes; FootJoys which are lovely and Nikes which are shit.

                      Comment


                        #61
                        According to something I just looked up, the ski boots Michaela Shiffrin wore to win gold in the last Olympics cost about $300. Hers are probably custom, so let's say $600. I cannot imagine a piece of footwear that needs to be built to any higher standards of precision or durability. I picked her, because she's the only skiier I can name and Olympic skiing seemed like the activity where perfection in the boots would matter the most, except for maybe astronauts. And, that's an industry where the manufacturers can charge a heavy mark-up because so many of their customers are looking to spend money just to do it.

                        So how could a manufacturer justify charging $500 or more for glorified trainers or shoes one is just going to wear in the office? I can just about understand $200. But $500 is just conspicuous spending.

                        Comment


                          #62
                          Because people will buy them?

                          Comment


                            #63
                            Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
                            So how could a manufacturer justify charging $500 or more for glorified trainers or shoes one is just going to wear in the office?
                            They don't have to.

                            Comment


                              #64
                              Originally posted by Hot Pepsi

                              I also don't quite get why more people with that kind of money can't see that they could just quit and never work again or listen to anyone again and still live very well. To have enough to live ok and never have to work for a check again would be real freedom.
                              Or — for many people — intense boredom.

                              Comment


                                #65
                                Going back to the OP I can't really believe that there are people in Wales who look at the absolute shitshow that is Westminster politics and say "Oh no, we couldn't possibly govern ourselves. That's ridiculous!"

                                And also I can't believe that Neil Hamilton has the gall to say the Welsh Assembly shouldn't exist when IT PAYS THE PROTOGAMMON FUCK'S FUCKING WAGES. Like if you don't agree with it DON'T GET FUCKING ELECTED TO IT ON A UKIP LIST YOU GRAVY TRAIN HYPOCRITE.

                                Comment


                                  #66
                                  Take a sheet of paper (assumed to be 0.1mm thick), tear it in two and stack the pieces. Tear and stack the pieces to make four pieces. Do this a further 21 times and the stack will be higher than the Burj Khalifa.

                                  Comment


                                    #67
                                    Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post

                                    Or — for many people — intense boredom.
                                    Not working for money doesn't have to mean sitting around not doing anything. Some of the busiest people I know are retired. It's just that they know that nothing very bad will happen if they have to quit any of the things they're involved in. And they aren't doing anything that is so stressful as to impair their health. That would be really nice.

                                    My late uncle really struggled with this. He was a successful anesthesiologist and he worried a lot about his retirement years before he actually retired for good. He'd developed lots of hobbies, small-business investments, grandchildren, etc, but he needed to be getting paid for him to feel like he was being valuable. He didn't need the money. He just felt that he needed his contribution to whatever it was to be measured in money. So he was never really happy with all the stuff he was doing.

                                    Comment


                                      #68
                                      Originally posted by irony towers View Post
                                      Take a sheet of paper (assumed to be 0.1mm thick), tear it in two and stack the pieces. Tear and stack the pieces to make four pieces. Do this a further 21 times and the stack will be higher than the Burj Khalifa.
                                      What would the width of that be?

                                      Comment


                                        #69
                                        Originally posted by irony towers View Post
                                        Take a sheet of paper (assumed to be 0.1mm thick), tear it in two and stack the pieces. Tear and stack the pieces to make four pieces. Do this a further 21 times and the stack will be higher than the Burj Khalifa.
                                        I can't sleep, so I look at OTF and I see this. You bastard.

                                        Let's see.

                                        Total doubling is 23 times, so our stack of pieces is 8,388,608. (1 x 2 x 2 x 2 etc...)

                                        Each piece is 0.1mm thick, so our stack is 838,860.8mm high.

                                        10mm in a cm, so 83886.08cm.

                                        100cm in a m, so 838.8608m

                                        Burj Khalifa is 829.8m.

                                        Yup.

                                        Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post

                                        What would the width of that be?
                                        Let's assume that your final stack was 8,388,608 pieces all 1cm x 1cm. I'm not going to faff around with full integers (it's 3.20am for Gods sake) so your original piece of paper would have a square of 28.96309m (Square root of 8,388,608).

                                        I now throw my workings on the mercy of OTF.

                                        Comment


                                          #70
                                          Thanks. I was wondering how wide the final tower would be if you started with an 8.5”x11”.

                                          Comment


                                            #71
                                            I'm trying to get back to sleep! Don't do this to me!

                                            Comment


                                              #72
                                              I think that the answer is

                                              7.454 microns x 9.647 microns.

                                              A micron being 1000/th of a mm. Or in real scientific terms, a human hair is 40 to 50 microns wide.

                                              My working:

                                              As above, if you have a perfect square of paper, you have to divide it into 2896.309 times along one edge to get enough pieces for your 8 million plus. 8.5" = 21.59cm / 2896.309 = 7.454 microns, and 11" = 27.94cm /2896.309 = 9.647 microns. Assuming you can make a perfect halfway cut each time to keep the ratios, that feels like it should be right. It probably isn't.

                                              Comment


                                                #73
                                                What if I’m using A4...?

                                                Comment


                                                  #74
                                                  Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post

                                                  7.454 microns x 9.647 microns.
                                                  The developer will probably try to cram several single aspect units onto each floor, leaving residents at significant risk of losing light and privacy when Nef's A4 tower goes up.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #75
                                                    The millions of years between dinosaur species thing that we've done before. T Rex living closer in time to the building of the Giza pyramid than to the stegosaurus species.

                                                    Also, more recently, Cleopatra living nearer in time to the invention of the iPhone than the building of the Giza pyramid.

                                                    There was a previous thread about this and it all really stuck with me.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X