That makes more sense. Plus it does seem a bit perversely cruel to not only kill and eat a nanny goat’s baby, but to cook it by boiling it in the milk its mother would have fed it with.
Or, of course, it might not have been an actual ritual of a competing religion, but just something that the Jews said that They did, precisely because it seemed perversely cruel.
Not really, no. The debate is about what sort of predators they were. They quite possibly weren’t agile nightmares that rended and tore you to shreds like a Jurassic Park raptor. Rather they may have been fast straight-line monsters that ran down small animals and swallowed them whole or pecked them to death and then tore off bits. Reconstructions show them as not having much lateral mobility in their bodies or having much bite force or mobility in their beaks, nor did they have actual talons. But the beaks were heavily reinforced with nasty raptorial tips and there are indications they were designed to smash down with great force. A little like being attacked by a giant chicken intent on pecking you to death (which would be fucking terrifying).
The closest living relatives would be pretty scary at 10’ tall.
He kind of covered that a while back.
“My pet theory is that in real life, the kid at the beginning of Jurassic Park who made fun of the 'six-foot turkey' never got a talking-to from Dr. Grant, and grew up to produce several of the movie's sequels.”
“Kasher” (Kosher) is a later Hebrew word that does not appear in the Bible. It means, basically, “valid”, and refers to food that you’re allowed to eat, which isn’t unclean or an abomination.
“Most properties can only boast INDOOR heated floors.”
Interesting. This is a rare one where it seems the characters are being tongue-in-cheek. Most strips where they just talk about something as opposed to being shown actually doing something fantastic, least one character is portrayed as fully believing the over-the-top things they’re saying.
Yes, the dialogue has more of a “Calvin and Hobbes” vibe than usual.
Sorta timely too here on the Dope as one of our fine members is not far from fresh new outdoor heated floors:
New what if video:
Brian
“If you have an old phone in a drawer, and you listen very carefully, you can occasionally hear the occasional tap of an emitted SIM card hitting the side of the drawer as the phone transmutes to a lower-end model.”
But what about Android phones? What do they decay to?
So, alpha decay means the number goes down by 2. And beta decay means the number goes up by 1 but you lose a modifier (Pro Max > Pro > Plus > None).
But there is one glitch. Presuming that X=10, we get iPhone 11 => iPhone 10 => iPhone 7, violating the alpha decay rule. Technically we could consider the iPhone X to be 9 since there otherwise was no 9. But there was no 10 either, and X seems a better fit for 10.
ETA: I guess that means that the number is atomic number, since alpha decay decreases it by 2 and beta decay increases it by 1. That would imply that the modifier is neutron count, since beta decay decreases that by 1… but alpha decay should decrease that by 2 as well, and it doesn’t. So it doesn’t quite work.
iPhones are a different type of particle. They don’t follow all the currently known laws of physics. We should have a better understanding when the iPhone Circular Collider high-energy capabilities come online in ~2070.
Isn’t that was this was for?
“We haven’t actually seen a star fall in since we invented telescopes, but I have a list of ones I’m really hoping are next.”
She’s not wrong.
Exactly the point. That whole thing was pretty darned subtle.
What about the grains of sands one?
There only needs to be one other grain of sand, on any planet other than earth, for that to be true
Earth has deserts already, which aren’t beaches, so it’s already true that there are more grains of sand on Earth than on all of Earth’s beaches combined.