Blowing into an enclosed space is chaotic, the fan has to push against air currents being deflected. Blowing into an open space (aka sucking out of you dishwasher) is much more orderly, the fan can simply pull the air out and there are much fewer air currents running orthogonal.
This is as far as my very basic knowledge goes here. You can try this effect by exhaling and inhaling air through a barely open mouth or a straw.
EDIT: On a related note, never “blow” during fellatio.
Ah, I was wondering where all the Karens went.
At my job we recently had an old device that was used to produce the sound a phone makes when the line is busy, open, etc. . It’s about arm length and 20 cm thick, you can distinguish the cogs producing the phase from the signal.
I mean, yes of course I would, but solely because I somehow voted for Trump.
See, I mostly disagree with the hardcoe ‘atheims’ memes on here but this one … this one is nice. Good job!
Buddy, if this is your reaction to reading a humouristic headline, you need to touch grass.
I think there used to be a teaching that depiction of humans was - for some reason - forbidden. But my source is the novel “Der Medicus” , so take that with a teaspoon of salt.
I recommend watching the third one, not because it is a good movie, but because it is a hilarious movie.
Thanks for the info! I didn’t think they were widespread, but figured they might be a bit wholesome and would light up this thread :)
Projecting ads onto the tunnel walls off of a moving subway. Seen in mainland Taiwan China.
I’d like to add that there are good versions of “microloans”! I learned that there used to be (or still are, didn’t check) non-profit " banks" in some parts of India (and South africa I think) that would give out small loans of a few dollars to a few hundred dollars (which can be quite a lot of money in India). There was no collateral and low interest, but a group of people had to apply for a loan together. Until the first loan was paid back, the rest of the group couldn’t apply again. It was meant to provide financial backing and capital to microbusinesses (e.g. fishers, farmers, peddlers) that would otherwise be excluded from the financial market due to a lack of collateral and otherwise be forced to take high-interest loans.
I mainly agree, but it could be substituted. Various biomolecules are being investigated as a replacement substrate for established (petro)chemical processes. Part of the issue is, that you need to defunctionalise the chemicals which is the opposite of what petrochemistry currently does (which is adding functional groups as needed, not removing them).
This research, however, is stifled by the cheap Price of oil. I know an anecdote of Nivea pulling their funding into a similar project because the price ber barrel recently fell. The project was supposed to last around 5 years.
Why would you pick a submarine for civil purposes? Just use a “normal” freighter and “slap” nuclear power on it.
(Ignoring the glaring issues from nuclear power on land that would be exacerbated at sea)
Certainly, they’re the shit, but the energy capacity you mentioned is a huge issue. As I said in my other comment it should/could/has to be done, but it’s anything but simple.
Still leagues ahead of biomass. Don’t get me wrong, this is an issue that can be solved. Biomass can be converted to biogas which can be purified to produce methane (or you just burn biogas directly) which then in turn can be used for heat (or other purposes) - the problem here is the sheer amount of energy this requires. Yes, significant portions of the steel industry can be “decarbonised” (or at least I think so) but the effort is immense. Doable, necessary, but it will be a huge piece of work.
This headline could use some Mandy Rice-Davies.
Eh, purity is a thing. Biomass is the opposite of what you want there, but it could be doable. I do wager, however, that the largest “climate cost” of steel comes from the repeated melting of the steel.
I know of at least two people who drink coffee, tea and red wine with a straw.
It’s an anti-missile system. To shoot down incoming missiles.
I once read a fairly interesting take on this: Historical settings are often chosen to wrap the story in a certain context in order to allow the reader to picture the style and theme without having to establish and explain a new setting first, so basically you skip on world building. If you read an analogy to Zeus you will immediately have an image in mind as well as a bunch of characteristics, no need to establish that beforehand.
Now, considering this it makes sense to choose a setting people already know - the 16th centruy Ottoman Empire is certainly interesting, but the average reader might know next to nothing about it and you have to explain everything first.
Why are these three settings used so much? Well, it’s positive feedback! Literature, Theatres and Video Games will select something well known and it receives popularity. In addition, a piece of media using a less-popular setting will have to a) compete with other media to become popular and b) provide plenty of worldbuilding in order to have the setting make sense. A piece of media that both establishes a “new” setting AND is very popular is going to be rare, making the entry of a new mythology/historical setting into mainstream difficult.