And what I'm saying is that in the context of an interview, 35 minutes is only a few minutes.
Wolf314159
joined 4 months ago
35 minutes doesn't seem very long for an interview. Is expecting the presidential candidate to remain lucid and coherent for slightly more than a half hour too much to ask?
That's not how physics or lawsuits work.
If they are using smaller blades, those blades are most certainly spinning much faster than the large blades of a riding or push mower. Thus you're just trading mass for speed and the energy exchange can remain largely the same. You can see this for yourself if you drop items (like a handful of sunflower seeds to simulate rocks) through a spinning ceiling fan or a smaller table fan spinning significantly faster; both can easily throw those seeds that get hit by the blades around a large room. This is how the smaller blades on a lawn mower would even be able to do the same work as the larger blades of a mower.
Also many devices, like table saws, chainsaws, and lawn mowers and considered inherently dangerous to operate. Lawsuits over injury as a result of misuse (like letting children or pets into the yard while mowing) usually have to factor in this inherent danger. There are certain safety measures in place, but I guarantee no mower operator manual suggests letting kids or pets play around a mobile set of spinning metal blades. If you fail to follow the basic instructions in an operators manual while operating a dangerous device, you don't have much ground in a lawsuit.
You're conflating peer review and studies that verify results. The problem is that verifying someone else's results isn't sexy, doesn't get you grant money, and doesn't further your career. Redoing the work and verifying the results of other "pioneers" is important, but thankless work. Until we insensitivise doing the boring science by funding all fundamental science research more, this kind of problem will only get worse.
Just organize your library properly and pretty much every software will manage it better. There are options for organizing and renaming them mostly automatically, like EastTAG or filebot. Some people use Sonarr and Radarr to organize shows and movies, but those are probably overkill for you. The various *arrs will be more useful if you're consuming new media through a server hosting Plex or Jellyfin. Kodi is also a waste if the library isn't already meticulously organized and you don't need a 10 foot interface.
If you're only consuming on desktop and you insist on being disorganized, then why even bother with anything other than VLC? It runs on Linux, Windows, iOS, and Android.
I am actually currently binging old episodes of Critical Role, but it's my first time through so I'm not sure if that counts.
Also, I'd re-listen to most every 99% Invisible and Planet Money episode.
Came here to say this show and Planet Money.
You're not making any sense.
They may have used the word wrong, but getting parodied by Weird Al is actually more prestigious than winning a Grammy. Not because Weird Al parodies are rare, but because he only parodies songs that are actually pretty good. I have trouble believing that if the song were actually bad, playing it on accordion with jokey lyrics would be an improvement. There's no Weird Al parody of a Nickelback song, that I know of.
This is one of those questions that is easy to scoff at initially as a stupid question, but really it's not. Especially once you learn about wombat poops.
I think we agree here. "A few" is debatable, based on opinion, but also context matters. If I say I need a few minutes to either put on my shoes, prepare dinner, wake up, take a shower, or take dump, those are all different lengths of time. I just feel that conversation and interviews take a lot more time than the edited results we commonly see in print and on TV. Things like pauses to reflect on questions, introductions, and warm up questions never make it to publication. If I was asked to sit for an interview and it ended after 35 minutes, I would absolutely characterise that as "a few minutes". And unless I'd ended it myself, I'd be concerned that it ended too quickly. If it had ended that wuickly, I'd be worried about what insane things I had done in those few minutes to provide them with enough material for a piece or that they had cancelled the piece entirely because they quickly determined I wasn't worth continuing the interview. That is my opinion, but I feel that it's well grounded in my experience and expectations, especially for a sit down interview with a candidate. I can see how calling 35 minutes "a few minutes" could be characterised as exaggerated, but getting incensed over it in a headline (a large font single line intended to grab attention in a few words) is overcompensating a bit.