nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

IamMetaldave

BaZmO* wrote: »

This post is the 10,000th post

Pipped.

Mod: Continuation from the old thread, which is here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

cdeb

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How many digits do most people have at the end of each limb ?

Not sure what the point is?

You can't say Imperial uses a lot of prime numbers and then give a factor in reply. Every number can be broken down into prime factors. Why not point out that a metre is = 2*2*5*5 for example?

(And don't forget we've also seen that fingers weren't the only counting methods)

Capt'n Midnight

cdeb wrote: »

Not sure what the point is?

silliussoddius wrote: »

Does anyone know why a species with ten fingers and thumbs ended using 12 times tables in maths class instead of something more base 10 orientated?

If we only counted on fingers. We'd have octal and computers would be more intuitive. And binary maths means multiplication and division and logs are way easier.

And blame the fish. Early tetrapods had more digits than we have, smaller ones lost their digits and they conquered the land. And that's why we use base 10.

And grass is green because it was green algae that conquered the land. Not the purple-sulphur bacteria, not the golden or red or brown algae or the blue-green cyanobacteria etc.

cdeb

I have honestly no idea what you're on about now!

ohnonotgmail

cdeb wrote: »

I have honestly no idea what you're on about now!

me neither. says that imperial measurements are based on prime numbers when that is clearly not true. when pressed for an example says 22 rods in a chain because 22 divided by 2 is 11 and 11 is a prime number.

New Home

Realt Dearg Sec

New Home wrote: »

Were there other foods that weren't rationed though? Like I don't see bread there, but presumably they were eating some of it.

My dad was born a couple of years after the war and rationing was still ongoing in Ireland. He said his birth was very welcome in the house because it entitled them to an extra ration book.

ohnonotgmail

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Were there other foods that weren't rationed though? Like I don't see bread there, but presumably they were eating some of it.

My dad was born a couple of years after the war and rationing was still ongoing in Ireland. He said his birth was very welcome in the house because it entitled them to an extra ration book.

fruit and veg were never rationed. Bread was never rationed during the war though bread rationing was introduced after the end of the war.

Sleepy

Plenty, and most families would have produced some amount of their own food whether from keeping livestock or fowl, growing veg etc.

cdeb

Spuds in particular were far more a staple food than usual.

Problem for Britain is that it couldn't (and still can't) feed itself. We don't have that problem here - yet we nearly had a famine here in 1946. Heavy rains meant the harvest very nearly failed, and with shortages in Europe from the east, we couldn't import either. Tens of thousands of people from the city went to volunteer on the farms and help as best they could. It was a national emergency; even sporting events like the League of Ireland were postponed so the players could help out with the harvest.

You can watch a bit about it (including contemporary colourised film, remarkably) on the RTÉ archives - https://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/2257-on-the-farm/642282-harvest-emergency/

roosterman71

cdeb wrote: »

Tens of thousands of people from the city went to volunteer on the farms and help as best they could. It was a national emergency; even sporting events like the League of Ireland were postponed so the players could help out with the harvest.

Would that happen today? I'll stick my neck on the line and say it wouldn't.

Gloomtastic!

roosterman71 wrote: »

Would that happen today? I'll stick my neck on the line and say it wouldn't.

They were probably Dubs who had come from the country originally and went to help out parents/relatives.

The mechanisation of farming since probably means they wouldn’t need us.

roosterman71

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

They were probably Dubs who had come from the country originally and went to help out parents/relatives.

The mechanisation of farming since probably means they wouldn’t need us.

True in a lot of farms I guess. Would still need fruit pickers, etc.
I wasn't having a go at Dubs or city people there. I'd reckon the majority of people not directly involved in farming would be very reluctant to help out

cdeb

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

They were probably Dubs who had come from the country originally and went to help out parents/relatives.

The mechanisation of farming since probably means they wouldn’t need us.

Yeah, this alright.

I think people were worried they'd be more hindrance than help back then too though, which is reassuring to see.

LostinBlanch

I heard a radio programme about the Clement Atlee (labour) government elected to power in in the UK in July 1945. The entire cabinet decided to come here for their holidays and one of the reasons given was the lack of rationing compared to the UK.

I wasn't aware that there was any rationing here after WW2, but it must have been a lot less than across the water.

mikhail

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

They were probably Dubs who had come from the country originally and went to help out parents/relatives.

The mechanisation of farming since probably means they wouldn’t need us.

I think part of the problem was that there'd been so much rain that what little mechanisation that was there was making a mess of any field it was put into. I don't know if modern farms have better drainage, but I'd guess they probably somewhat do on average.

The switch from hay to silage made a big difference to how much animal fodder depended on good weather - it took days and days of dry weather to save the hay, while you can bale silage in the rain if you want to. I don't know if there's anything similar with food crops; my relatives didn't grow any when I was a kid.

Capt'n Midnight

cdeb

You'll have heard of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 of course, but maybe quite how bad it was.

For three months, around 8,000 people per day were killed, in a country the size of Munster. That's about twice the daily rate of deaths during the Holocaust, which was across the whole of Europe of course. Or about five times the rate in Cambodia. More than 10% of the country's population were butchered, and it messed around with life expectancy stats, which dropped to 23 years.

The population of Rwanda now is almost twice its pre-genocide peak.

joujoujou

New Home

Duckworth_Luas

The most Northerly point of Brazil is closer to Canada then it is to its most Southerly point.

retalivity

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

The most Northerly point of Brazil is closer to Canada then it is to its most Southerly point.

And Africa too, if you count Cape Verde

KevRossi

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

The most Northerly point of Brazil is closer to Canada then it is to its most Southerly point.

It's southernmost point is also nearer to Antarctica than it is to it's northernmost point.

It's easternmost point is nearer to mainland Africa than to it's westernmost point.

It's easternmost point is nearer to Spain (well the Canaries), than it is to it's westernmost point.

To give it some perspective, east to west in Brazil is about the same distance as from Dublin to Uzbekistan.

North to south is 300 km more than Dublin to the North Pole, or about the same as Dublin to Dakar.

cdeb

KevRossi wrote: »

It's southernmost point is also nearer to Antarctica than it is to it's northernmost point.

It's easternmost point is nearer to mainland Africa than to it's westernmost point.

It's easternmost point is nearer to Spain (well the Canaries), than it is to it's westernmost point.

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

KevRossi

cdeb wrote: »

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Sorry. Its annoiying is'nt it.

Realt Dearg Sec

KevRossi wrote: »

Sorry. Its annoiying is'nt it.

Its not to bad

Professor Moriarty

I'm very annoyed. Very very annoyed. Bank holiday weekend ruined now. Thanks for that.

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Thanks for that.

yore well come