Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Joe Scott" channel.

It's recently been discovered that the reason their concrete is so much better than ours (at least this is the leading theory), is because the specific mix of local sand and gravel, along with the seawater, created a chemical reaction that turns the concrete over time, into silicate (a key component of concrete.) Silicate isn't a huge part of modern concrete, but Roman concrete has much higher proportions. This essentially turned Roman concrete into solid blocks of mineral the more seawater they're exposed to!
12
@0neBadMonkey Guess I walked right into that one, huh... I don't have a good emoticon for the face I'm making right now, so imagine XD and :/ had a child. Also, every '90s middle school called, they want their pun back!
4
@tomf3150 They also couldn't use rebar (I mean they also didn't know that it was even possible but) if they did, the concrete would have broken down much faster. Rebar is currently the only way to create concrete floors above ground, so their building style was severely restricted.
3
@0neBadMonkey Ironically, that's a pretty stupid quote. Carlin (love him, rip) is wrong. The median intelligence is what half of the population is dumber than. Average is just all of it added up, and divided by the number of people. Being nitpicky here, but the idea that something's "close enough" has kind of led us into the society we're in now lol
3
@Babalouie59 Here we run into the biggest obstacle for peace. Conflicts of interest. (From a Russian perspective, you don't have to agree) Russia cannot back out of the war because it is crucial to stemming US influence in the region. The US is not interested in ever making peace with Russia, it has openly expressed (even before 2014) desires to break the Federation apart (RAND Institute being the most prominent).That would not be good for Igor or anyone else in Russia. We saw what happened after the USSR. Hopefully you did too. Basically you have to pick the lesser of two evils in many cases
3
@davidcadman4468 That sentiment has been repeated throughout history. Think of the horsemen and carriage operators. "If these newfangled machines take over, there'll be no jobs left for real people! The beginning of the end!" New jobs will emerge to meet the new requirements of keeping a self-driving car in usable condition. Who's going to service repairs, (should a car gain this ability) deliver food to the trunk instead of parking, leaving, and coming back? Aftermarket parts stores will see a boom as people pay more attention to looks, now that functionality is taken care of. Who will staff them? Marketing for the cars, stores, and companies making the parts? Come on man. I'm just bullshitting here at this point, but there will always be more jobs as long as we're in a capitalistic society. I'm very sorry you lost your job; your employer should have at least given you paid retraining, but to move forward, people need to either adapt, or be left behind.
2
Checkmate Christians
1
@Thumbsupurbum It's weird to hear it in this context, I realized that it's just "the thing that roosts"- or is the verb roost named after the rooster?
1
@jodysmith8048 I think you're mistaking cause vs mechanism of death. Sure, the patients may not have died from COVID directly (mechanism), but it's what primarily led to their death (cause). Basically, they might not have been healthy but if they didn't have COVID they likely wouldn't have died. It's like saying 'all these AIDS deaths are overblown', they're just dying of fever/staph infection/blood loss!' AIDS isn't what physically caused their heart to stop beating, but it is what caused them to die.
1
Before panicking, I'd laugh because I can imagine aliens destroying themselves with memes
1
Mike Bready Yep. I have to say though, as someone who's heavily versed in American political discourse, there are some differences between the American 'right' and 'left.' (For sake of posterity, I'm using the two best-known channels here): -Fox News tends to be better organized as far as its segments go, but the segments themselves are packed to the brim with falsities and appeals to emotion (usually fear). -CNN, on the other hand, still makes an attempt to report on dry, factual events (i.e. no conclusions drawn, just events listed), but their segments are filled with panels full of arguing people who spend hours talking about nothing. It's actually more annoying than Fox sometimes. Both stink, and their grubby little fingers are starting to reach the Internet (if you haven't noticed, a lot of TV shows have cluttered YouTube's Recommended page within the last few years. I guess we'll have to find a new safe space- the irony is not lost on me- before Google buys it and turns it into one big advertisement again.)
1
@MCsCreations Capitalism, as the name suggests, is an economic system in which the acquisition of capital is allowed, encouraged, and considered the 'goal' of the system. That's purely economic. Sounds to me like you're a libertarian. They have a moral 'do whatever the fuck you want' component to them, although that idea (and sorry, but yours too) is self-defeating- if, say, my rights to swing my fist, end at the tip of someone else's nose, then the freedom isn't total and unrestricted. If it isn't, then I don't have freedom from harm. It's really just the paradox of absolutes, and the reason why nothing like that will ever work (because of the inherent contradiction, unless you interpret 'freedom' as a specific set of freedoms, at which point you've stopped supporting the "total and unrestricted" type.) Not to mention the distinction between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'. Very sticky issues, not solvable with a simple ideology.
1
@MCsCreations I agree, and thank you for framing it that way. That being said, I still think that the philosophical underpinnings of absolute freedom are flawed. While punishing somebody for committing a crime (which, I remind you, is a subjective term) is considered by most people to be 'fair' and 'just,' it is still a restriction of a certain freedom, albeit an immoral one. This is why most libertarians do, in fact, make an exception to their 'absolute freedom' rule, instead of jumping straight into anarchism: freedoms (or rather, rights) are justified so long as they are not mutually exclusive to another person holding identical rights. In other words, police are there to punish you, dissuade you, from continuing to punch people in the face. It's been made illegal because it restricts other people's rights to freedom from (in this case) harm. And while you can do anything you want initially, you're not free from persecution should you choose to do those- I just wanted to point out that absolutes are never a sound ideology to stand on, because they clash with the complexity of the real world.
1