|
On February 03 2016 21:30 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2016 21:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 03 2016 15:11 OtherWorld wrote:On February 03 2016 14:38 Zambrah wrote:
What is trap music tyrannosaur rap ; it refers to the big rap artists/bands of the early Hip-Hop era Trap isn't a portmanteau of "Tyrannosaur rap"; it refers to the following "trap": "The term "trap" is used to refer to the place where drug deals are made and how it is difficult to escape the lifestyle. The term originated in Atlanta, Georgia where rappers Cool Breeze, Dungeon Family, Outkast, Goodie Mob, and Ghetto Mafia were some of the first to use the term in their music. Fans and critics started to refer to rappers whose primary lyrical topic was drug dealing, as "trap rappers."[4] ... During the early-to-mid 2000s, trap music began to emerge as a recognized genre after the mainstream success of a number of albums and singles with lyrics that covered topics about life in "the trap", drug dealing and the struggle for success.[5] Several Southern rappers with drug dealer personas such as T.I., Young Jeezy, Gucci Mane and Rick Ross produced crossover hits and helped expand the popularity of the genre, with trap records beginning to appear more heavily on mixtapes and radio stations outside of the South.[2]" ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_music The article goes on to explain that trap music has also started to include EDM (electronic dance music) elements, where "EDM trap" includes some dubstep, techno, and house sounds. And so trap music might refer to rap genre without the EDM elements, or it might be referring to the newer EDM-infused genre. It was a joke^^ I had no idea about what trap music actually was though, so thanks for the enlightenment
Ah okay  For the record, I far prefer the dinosaur reference lol.
|
|
|
Canada11355 Posts
Context for my question:
Rust has steam workshop items available for purchase as skins for ingame equipment, they are also available as drops that come as frequently as steam cards.
There is an official store as well as the steam marketplace. Some items, notably the gun in my picture, are being sold for more money on the marketplace than they are worth on the official store.
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +
Can someone explain to me why this happens? Is it just that buyers don't know about the official store and sellers are taking advantage of that?
|
They have an official store? Damn.
What other games have official stores
|
Can the items be bought indefinitly or are there a limit on the total items that can be bought? (ie the higher price on the marketplace can be due to the fact the official store is often out of stock). Yeah I know it might sound like a dumb question since we're speaking of virtual goods, but else I don't see why.
|
It can very well be a matter of knowledge or convenience of the other store that causes the price difference.
That was the case in diablo 3's auction house. You'd be able to get things much cheaper through an auction than through a direct buyout. Probably due to the auction items not coming immediately, not for certain, and it was a bit messier to search for. Exploiting this difference was possibly the easiest way to progress up the D3 auction house, if I may say so myself.
|
If a whale or a large shark were to swallow a midget scuba-diver whole, how should he escape?
|
On February 05 2016 05:48 Epishade wrote:
If a whale or a large shark were to swallow a midget scuba-diver whole, how should he escape?
Is his name Jonah?
|
On February 05 2016 05:48 Epishade wrote:
If a whale or a large shark were to swallow a midget scuba-diver whole, how should he escape?
Most of those animals have a relatively small esophagus so it wouldn't be possible for them to swallow a whole midget diver. If you somehow got in there I guess you should try to stab it to death with something sharp but you would probably suffocate before escaping.
|
United States44201 Posts
On February 05 2016 05:48 Epishade wrote:
If a whale or a large shark were to swallow a midget scuba-diver whole, how should he escape?
Release some of the pressurized air in the tank to inflate the whale/shark. Either it vomits you out in a bout of horrible stomach cramps or it rises to the surface, leaves the water and floats safely over the sea towards land, suffocating in the process.
|
|
|
Maybe it works the same as "calm down dude". You tell someone to calm down and people often receive it as "umad bro?!". A person won't just calm down or cheer up when someone tells them to, it can be annoying
|
On February 05 2016 07:12 Sent. wrote:
Maybe it works the same as "calm down dude". You tell someone to calm down and people often receive it as "umad bro?!". A person won't just calm down or cheer up when someone tells them to, it can be annoying
That's pretty much it. I know as a black guy just slightly raising my voice usually makes people start acting like I'm 30 seconds from hulking out.
For women it's "smile honey" and it usually come from men who are less concerned about them being happy (who knows if they are) and more concerned about how the "unhappy" looking woman makes THEM feel.
Just think about how often you've been walking down the street and you tell another man or he tells you to "smile". Doesn't happen really.
|
Ah okay. Thanks
|
It's also a frequency issue. Most men don't get barraged to smile for the random stranger.
|
SOLVED see post #7820
+ Show Spoiler +A UNICEF report used some surveys in 30 countries and statistical modeling to estimate that 200 million girls/women had excisions (female genital mutilation/crude removal of the clitoris) in 2015. They consider that it's a conservative estimate.
The figure surprised me, so I went on google and checked how many births there are every year. The figure is about 131 millions. Let's round way the fuck up and say 70 millions of girls are born every year. Now, I have no idea how to determine how many of those are born in countries were excisions are not practiced, but I imagine it's a good number of them. So let's say 30 millions of girls are born in places where excisions are never practiced, that leaves 40 million girls who live under threat of senseless genital mutilation. Some countries have a near 100% excision rate, others are much lower.
From there, how the -FUCK- do we get to 200 million excisions in 2015? I understand that the procedure takes place occasionally a few years after birth, but surely there's not a backlog of excisions that somehow got unclogged in 2015. Someone care to explain? Maybe someone dug up a bunch of crates full of old rusty knives? What am I missing, this doesn't seem to add up. An article on Al Jazeera reports "Although the practice is more widespread than previously known, [the lead researcher] said that overall the global prevalence of FGM is declining."
How is the practice declining if the number of excisions is largely superior to the number of births in the countries where it is practiced? Are there repeat excisions when it failed the first time? I very well might be missing something, help
|
On February 05 2016 14:05 Djzapz wrote:
A UNICEF report used some surveys in 30 countries and statistical modeling to estimate that 200 million girls/women had excisions (female genital mutilation/crude removal of the clitoris) in 2015. They consider that it's a conservative estimate.
The figure surprised me, so I went on google and checked how many births there are every year. The figure is about 131 millions. Let's round way the fuck up and say 70 millions of girls are born every year. Now, I have no idea how to determine how many of those are born in countries were excisions are not practiced, but I imagine it's a good number of them. So let's say 30 millions of girls are born in places where excisions are never practiced, that leaves 40 million girls who live under threat of senseless genital mutilation. Some countries have a near 100% excision rate, others are much lower.
From there, how the -FUCK- do we get to 200 million excisions in 2015? I understand that the procedure takes place occasionally a few years after birth, but surely there's not a backlog of excisions that somehow got unclogged in 2015. Someone care to explain? Maybe someone dug up a bunch of crates full of old rusty knives? What am I missing, this doesn't seem to add up. An article on Al Jazeera reports "Although the practice is more widespread than previously known, [the lead researcher] said that overall the global prevalence of FGM is declining."
How is the practice declining if the number of excisions is largely superior to the number of births in the countries where it is practiced? Are there repeat excisions when it failed the first time? I very well might be missing something, help
The problem with your analysis is that you're assuming its not practiced in countries you believe do not practice it.
|
On February 05 2016 14:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 14:05 Djzapz wrote:
A UNICEF report used some surveys in 30 countries and statistical modeling to estimate that 200 million girls/women had excisions (female genital mutilation/crude removal of the clitoris) in 2015. They consider that it's a conservative estimate.
The figure surprised me, so I went on google and checked how many births there are every year. The figure is about 131 millions. Let's round way the fuck up and say 70 millions of girls are born every year. Now, I have no idea how to determine how many of those are born in countries were excisions are not practiced, but I imagine it's a good number of them. So let's say 30 millions of girls are born in places where excisions are never practiced, that leaves 40 million girls who live under threat of senseless genital mutilation. Some countries have a near 100% excision rate, others are much lower.
From there, how the -FUCK- do we get to 200 million excisions in 2015? I understand that the procedure takes place occasionally a few years after birth, but surely there's not a backlog of excisions that somehow got unclogged in 2015. Someone care to explain? Maybe someone dug up a bunch of crates full of old rusty knives? What am I missing, this doesn't seem to add up. An article on Al Jazeera reports "Although the practice is more widespread than previously known, [the lead researcher] said that overall the global prevalence of FGM is declining."
How is the practice declining if the number of excisions is largely superior to the number of births in the countries where it is practiced? Are there repeat excisions when it failed the first time? I very well might be missing something, help
The problem with your analysis is that you're assuming its not practiced in countries you believe do not practice it.
I'd expect those numbers to be marginal, but even if you look at the numbers and make the ridiculously wild assumption that every single girl in every single country including the US, Canada, every EU country gets an excision, you're still off by 130 millions.
How do you get a decline in the number of practiced excisions while practicing 200 million of them while only 70 million girls are born? Even if it's done girls a few years after birth, you'd expect it couldn't go at 3x the rate of birth of girls, especially since the 70 million figure is absurdly high here. It doesn't follow, unless they're somehow catching up for previous years when they didn't practice so many excisions, in which case no one would be talking about "a decline in the prevalence of FGM".
|
On February 05 2016 14:05 Djzapz wrote:
A UNICEF report used some surveys in 30 countries and statistical modeling to estimate that 200 million girls/women had excisions (female genital mutilation/crude removal of the clitoris) in 2015. They consider that it's a conservative estimate.
The figure surprised me, so I went on google and checked how many births there are every year. The figure is about 131 millions. Let's round way the fuck up and say 70 millions of girls are born every year. Now, I have no idea how to determine how many of those are born in countries were excisions are not practiced, but I imagine it's a good number of them. So let's say 30 millions of girls are born in places where excisions are never practiced, that leaves 40 million girls who live under threat of senseless genital mutilation. Some countries have a near 100% excision rate, others are much lower.
From there, how the -FUCK- do we get to 200 million excisions in 2015? I understand that the procedure takes place occasionally a few years after birth, but surely there's not a backlog of excisions that somehow got unclogged in 2015. Someone care to explain? Maybe someone dug up a bunch of crates full of old rusty knives? What am I missing, this doesn't seem to add up. An article on Al Jazeera reports "Although the practice is more widespread than previously known, [the lead researcher] said that overall the global prevalence of FGM is declining."
How is the practice declining if the number of excisions is largely superior to the number of births in the countries where it is practiced? Are there repeat excisions when it failed the first time? I very well might be missing something, help
Yeah, that sounds a bit odd...
You either misinterpreted something, or one of the two numbers (or both) is off by quite some bit.
If you give us sources for the two numbers (200M and 131M) we may be able to figure out which one it is.
|
On February 05 2016 15:03 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 14:05 Djzapz wrote:
A UNICEF report used some surveys in 30 countries and statistical modeling to estimate that 200 million girls/women had excisions (female genital mutilation/crude removal of the clitoris) in 2015. They consider that it's a conservative estimate.
The figure surprised me, so I went on google and checked how many births there are every year. The figure is about 131 millions. Let's round way the fuck up and say 70 millions of girls are born every year. Now, I have no idea how to determine how many of those are born in countries were excisions are not practiced, but I imagine it's a good number of them. So let's say 30 millions of girls are born in places where excisions are never practiced, that leaves 40 million girls who live under threat of senseless genital mutilation. Some countries have a near 100% excision rate, others are much lower.
From there, how the -FUCK- do we get to 200 million excisions in 2015? I understand that the procedure takes place occasionally a few years after birth, but surely there's not a backlog of excisions that somehow got unclogged in 2015. Someone care to explain? Maybe someone dug up a bunch of crates full of old rusty knives? What am I missing, this doesn't seem to add up. An article on Al Jazeera reports "Although the practice is more widespread than previously known, [the lead researcher] said that overall the global prevalence of FGM is declining."
How is the practice declining if the number of excisions is largely superior to the number of births in the countries where it is practiced? Are there repeat excisions when it failed the first time? I very well might be missing something, help
Yeah, that sounds a bit odd... You either misinterpreted something, or one of the two numbers (or both) is off by quite some bit. If you give us sources for the two numbers (200M and 131M) we may be able to figure out which one it is.
Alright sorry if I misled anyone, I figured it out. It was pretty simple and I'm dumb.
This is the article I learned about this in (French article):
http://www.lapresse.ca/international/201602/04/01-4947381-au-moins-200-millions-dexcisions-pratiquees-en-2015-estime-lunicef.php
The title is misleading, it says "at least 200 million excisions practiced(?) in 2015, according to a UNICEF estimate". The article kind of hints at the reality of the situation, but given the title it's a bit unclear, I didn't connect the dots because I'm tired or dumb or both. So I googled it to find another source. There is a total of 200 million women who have had the procedure overall and who are currently alive, it's NOT 200 million surgeries in 2015. Makes more sense, I don't understand why I didn't connect the dots by myself when I realized that the figure made no sense in any other context.
I should stop reading La Presse, they're super shit. Le Devoir is local and wrote a much better article here (French article):
http://www.ledevoir.com/international/actualites-internationales/462181/un-rapport-fait-etat-de-200-millions-de-victimes-de-mutilations-genitales
As for the articles in English, they're pretty clear:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/2/4/unicef-200-million-girls-and-women-have-undergone-fgm.html
http://time.com/4207731/200-million-women-children-fgm-unicef/
...
Even the dailymail's article is better than one of my sources of (mostly local) news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wcQQ10p.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JfTNsDu.png)
