It's more expensive because they have to test it on baby animals.
Yes also 364 days from 13x28 would not align with years around the sun. We'd still need a leap year with 5x73 but that's easier than correcting from 364.
There is no record of this comment
I love that you can block bots on Lemmy.
- Garlic - rabies victims have an aversion to strong stimuli, eg taste, smell, and also light.
- Wooden stakes - in the late stages rabid people are paralytic. They're still alive, but don't move. However, if you stab them they might scream.
Yes the word might have medieval origins, but what Robert overlooked is when the stories actually began being formed.
Yes exactly! But at least he did mention rabies, and Balkan legends involving werewolves, even if only in passing.
Tbh I think there are so many facets to the "vampire" and associated legends that anyone can be forgiven for not comprehensively covering all of them - particularly with how they've been blended together over the last century or so. The podcast is meant to be about specific bastard people, after all.
It is a very metal title, and it's no wonder Bram Stoker chose it as the name of his character.
I still maintain that vampires = rabies, though.
- Biting - the main way rabies is transmitted
- Weak to holy water - rabies causes hydrophobia
- Snarling faces - rabies causes muscles to tighten, dogs who have rabies are very snarly
- Transforms into bats, wolves, etc - rabies is often spread by these animals
- Feeds on livestock - many "prey" animals primarily exhibit the paralytic form of rabies
- No reflection - in the past, a person was not considered rabid if they could look at their own reflection
Give me any other vampire trope, I think I can relate it to rabies.
Tired of “every political problem is US fault,” so I’m kicking the can.
That's the impression the article title gives you - and it gave me, also - but when you read it I think you'll realise it's far more than mere hyperbole.
Edit: Also, all the great bits about Great Britain are not English. It's primarily the English (as well as a few Scottish aristocrats) who perpetrated all the colonial bullshit.
Bring back the Normans, I say. The only people who successfully conquered Britain in 1,000 years. Technically, the Channel Islands is the last Norman refuge. I'd quite happily have the Bailiwick of Guernsey rule over the UK - not Jersey though, they're a bunch of toffs and should stay on their own Island, where the rest of the Tories can be deported to.
But I genuinely think you should read the article, all the way, if you haven't yet.
If that was Elon's goal, rather than the goal of various other people he's closely associated with (eg Peter Thiel, Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman, to name but two of the most prominent ones), then such a goal could be fulfilled by platforms that take Twitter's place after it's gone - along with all the debt Twitter owes, including rent not being paid, state fines, lawsuits from former investors and staff, and the $13bn loan from the buyout itself.
That isn't to say this was Musk's goal all along, rather that's what it has transformed into.
I always saw it as two possible outcomes: either they make Twitter into what they always wanted from the failed startups that tried to compete against Twitter, and pay off the debt to keep it going; or they run it into the ground and write off the debt, then replace it with something more favourable. The latter seems more and more likely as time has passed.
Where did I say Musk was going to profit?? All I said is that he took a private (sector) business that was serving as a public forum and is running it into the ground.
You then deviated off, talking about the difference between privately traded and publicly traded businesses, as if that was some salient point I had overlooked.
Musk had to make the purchase, he was forced to, thanks to his dumbassery. I'm not saying he planned this all along, but that doesn't mean he isn't trying to make something of the loss by running it into the ground and seeing what kind of dodgy precedents he can set along the way. Such precedents pave the way for new platforms that take its place after it's gone.
Mark my words, Twitter/X is going to die. To be more specific, bankruptcy within 5 years, probably far fewer.
It doesn’t explain why he would have wanted to destroy the company in the first place.
For that, you could turn to his old friend, Peter Thiel. Thiel tried and failed to start up businesses that competed directly against Twitter. Aside from Thiel, there are plenty of other people who likely resent Twitter - such as the Saudi prince who now owns a portion of it alongside Musk.
I think the goal is to bring Twitter down, then replace it with something else. Alternatively, they could turn Twitter into what they want it to be by further financing it and covering the debt, though that seems less and less likely as time goes on. However, by sending Twitter down the toilet they can experiment with the kind of things that future platforms might be able to do - anything Twitter gets reprimanded for will ultimately have no consequence if Twitter goes away, but anything Twitter gets away with can be fair game for new start ups.
I think you’re giving him too much credit, I think he’s just an overconfident dumbass that got himself into trouble and is trying to erase his mistake without ruining his reputation as a genius.
I agree he's an overconfident dumbass and got himself into this position, and I'm sure he desperately values his reputation - the one aspect of all this that I'm enjoying is how badly his reputation is getting ruined. I still worry about more sinister things happening over the long run that may shape the future of social platforms for the worse, though.
That was my guess.