there are currently 1,400+ people watching and not a single one of them knows why they’re here including me
this is what the chat is like
okay so i was on this livestream and
WHO IS THIS HERO
sorry for reblogging again BUT OMG
Important addition
THE SHERIFF DABBED FOR US
every time people walk through the arch the comments are flooded with “yes!! feed the arch!! another human sacrifice for the arch!!” everything about this is unclear
See, I never understood those movies. Like, I thought the entire point of the US president was so you had an elected person–a regular American who is replaceable (and for whom you even have a spare)–instead of a monarch with a divine right to rule. So seriously:
“Sir, they have the president.“
“Can we get them back without killing 400 military personnel?“
“Nope.“
“Bummer. Well, that’s what the back-up is for. Call the VP, initiate the plans for the state funeral and then phone those fuckers back and tell them we don’t negotiate with terrorists.“
Right?
“How much of the Cabinet do we have?”
“Everyone but the Secretary of Education and Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs. And EPA, because it was her retirement party.”
“Had she resigned?”
“Yeah, it was effective immediately on letter day.”
“Okay, so we have…. 12 out of 15.”
“13 out of 16, If you count the VP.”
“Cool, that’s quorum. Set up a GoToMeeting, we’re invoking the 25th amendment.”
“But ma’am, what about the President?”
“SecVet was a SEAL, and EPAdmin was a pardoned eco-extremist. They’ll get the lawyer out.”
"And SecEd?”
"That lady ran middle schools for a living.”
“You’re right. Those poor fuckers. They’re so screwed.”
Typically, you’d at least want to save the US president because he had access to very high level intelligence and it would be in everyone’s best interest if what he knew didn’t get in the hands of anyone dangerous who could use it.
But Trump doesn’t read anything and has never paid attention to any security briefing, so yeah, this post still stands.
Because treating people fairly often means treating them differently.
This is something that I teach my students during the first week of school and they understand it. Eight year olds can understand this and all it costs is a box of band-aids.
I have each students pretend they got hurt and need a band-aid. Children love band-aids. I ask the first one where they are hurt. If he says his finger, I put the band-aid on his finger. Then I ask the second one where they are hurt. No matter what that child says, I put the band-aid on their finger exactly like the first child. I keep doing that through the whole class. No matter where they say their pretend injury is, I do the same thing I did with the first one.
After they all have band-aids in the same spot, I ask if that actually helped any of them other than the first child. I say, “Well, I helped all of you the same! You all have one band-aid!” And they’ll try to get me to understand that they were hurt somewhere else. I act like I’m just now understanding it. Then I explain, “There might be moments this year where some of you get different things because you need them differently, just like you needed a band-aid in a different spot.”
If at any time any of my students ask why one student has a different assignment, or gets taken out of the class for a subject, or gets another teacher to come in and help them throughout the year, I remind my students of the band-aids they got at the start of the school year and they stop complaining. That’s why eight year olds can understand equity.
I remember reading somewhere once “we should be speaking of equity instead of equality” and that is a principle that applies here me thinks
Chris turning red and thinking bad thoughts, lol. Me, too, buddy.
Well that’s one hell of a face journey
My fav part is that you’ve got Evans going on this face journey of delighted gutter thoughts, and then there’s Hemsworth, just nomming away nonchalantly like he hasn’t just made his buddy plunge suddenly and unexpectedly into nsfw mental image land
… Y’see, now, y’see, I’m looking at this, thinking, squares fit together better than circles, so, say, if you wanted a box of donuts, a full box, you could probably fit more square donuts in than circle donuts if the circumference of the circle touched the each of the corners of the square donut.
So you might end up with more donuts.
But then I also think… Does the square or round donut have a greater donut volume? Is the number of donuts better than the entire donut mass as a whole?
Hrm.
HRM.
A round donut with radius R1 occupies the same space as a square donut with side 2R1. If the center circle of a round donut has a radius R2 and the hole of a square donut has a side 2R2, then the area of a round donut is πR12 – πr22. The area of a square donut would be then 4R12 – 4R22. This doesn’t say much, but in general and throwing numbers, a full box of square donuts has more donut per donut than a full box of round donuts.
The interesting thing is knowing exactly how much more donut per donut we have. Assuming first a small center hole (R2 = R1/4) and replacing in the proper expressions, we have a 27,6% more donut in the square one (Round: 15πR12/16 ≃ 2,94R12, square: 15R12/4 = 3,75R12). Now, assuming a large center hole (R2 = 3R1/4) we have a 27,7% more donut in the square one (Round: 7πR12/16 ≃ 1,37R12, square: 7R12/4 = 1,75R12). This tells us that, approximately, we’ll have a 27% bigger donut if it’s square than if it’s round.
tl;dr: Square donuts have a 27% more donut per donut in the same space as a round one.
god i love this site
can’t argue with science. Heretofore, I want my donuts square.
