xratedcheese

xratedcheese t1_ja2jlru wrote

Their claim:

"Giant Rider is capable of punching out 1.5G acceleration while the competition can only deliver 0.5G acceleration! "

That "punching out" was certainly carefully chosen. For a very brief period (fraction of a second?) they could jerk the whole cabin to give you the feeling of actual acceleration for that brief time, but absolutely not the feeling of sustained acceleration unless they are suspending the cabins and whirling them up to speed like amusement park swings.

2

xratedcheese t1_j2915bc wrote

I wonder what percentage of Poles have been conditioned to give the "correct" answer when answering surveys?

Question: "Do you pray every day?"

Suspicious Pole: "Uh... who's asking? I mean, sure! Yeah, I pray every day. That's right. Every day."

Though I suppose a lot of people mutter a little "please God" when they buy a Lotto.

1

xratedcheese t1_j267e5c wrote

> the test-driver's self-perception as a user of new gadgetry

It's a shame so many people want that feeling. Too many gadgets are replaced before their time just because people feel good about wearing a "user of new gadgetry" badge.

3

xratedcheese t1_j1c811x wrote

You need teeth. Nerves preserve teeth.

  • If teeth had no nerves, you'd chomp on unchompable things -- "me eat rock" -- until your teeth wore down, broke, and fell out. Then you'd die and not have children whose teeth have no nerves.
  • If your teeth have nerves, you're a bit more careful about your teeth -- "ow, me NO eat rock" -- and you live a healthy life and get laid and have children whose teeth have nerves.
391

xratedcheese t1_j0rp8ak wrote

If you're using multiple parallel lines (or a clothes drying rack), drape pieces of clothing so that each piece goes up and over one line, across, and then down over the adjacent line, leaving space in between.

That trades space for speed, so don't do it for everything; just do it for the stuff you need relatively quickly.

1

xratedcheese t1_itp212v wrote

> You are probably right that a lot of people (not necessarily historians) are overly keen to identify something as a ritual item

If it looks like a dildo, it's a dildo. There's no need to concoct an elaborate non-dildo theory to explain the existence of a dildo. (Though they may indeed have used their dildos in rituals.)

2