Interested in almost everything. Science, technology and politics right now. Sports fan. Making world a better place. Euphonium. 633 Sqdrn is best theme ever.
Dogs just couldn’t wait to share their Solstice enthusiasm. 0509 was a bit zealous I think.
We’ve all had breakfast and a lounge around on the sofa. It’s time for a clipping session and then a trip to the wonderful Graves Park.
They have a long history!
From the many entertaining headlines through to “Pulpit Poofs Can Stay” (sadly, of an age, 1987, referring to Synod debate). They didn’t cover themselves in glory over Hillsborough from memory.
But… they do work their way back into (my) affections! I think the ability to succinctly wind up specific political demographics is a mandatory job requirement at the Sun.
@Galactic_Nutria@Rainmaker1973 A0 is defined to have area of 1m2.
A ratio of sqrt(2):1 is used for the sides. This forces first the dimensions of A0, but also the dimensions of A1,A2,A3,A4 and A5 (when you successively fold at the middle of the longest current side).
Agree. That’s a good reason not to lay out a fully curvature-informed answer to replace the 3-4-5 triangle argument for the Equator start point (or elsewhere provided the North and lateral movements are well defined).
The error arising from the 3-4-5 argument, starting at the equator,is likely <1mm. It’s far more important to enjoy the sunny weather in such circumstances.
Well you might like to reassure Mrs W that the PartyRings are VAT-free, which of course was a major motivator behind your choice. It could have been chocolate covered biscuits, which you have graciously avoided (and so avoided 20% VAT).
If she points out that most foodstuffs are VAT-free then you may need to ad lib a bit.
@history99917180 “Arnold Layne had a strange hobby
Collecting clothes, moonshine washing line.”
written about someone in that neighbourhood and a little bit topical.
My first formal thought was that **a** Jew (your wife) is responsible for you not having a girlfriend.
On reflection, one of your wife's ancestors or even persons officiating at your wedding could also count (Exhibits B, C,...) making your observations about Jews (plural) obviously correct.
Yes,
The (often unstated) ‘benchmark’ used to determine whether we should be shocked is always a ‘random’ one. As methodology goes, this is, quite clearly, utter nonsense.
The quotation of such (correct) statistics without context is ignorant at best and likely just disingenuous.
In a sense it’s a variant of “telling the truth but not the whole truth”.
Or, in more social media terms, “I’ll just leave that there.”, knowing full well you’ll draw the wrong conclusions.
This drivel rarely seems challenged in the media. Rather, it is just promoted.