Things you can't get your head around...

[Fightforever]

2 hours ago, Royston. said:

So the stress and anxiety is thinking of all the things you could/should buy?

 

 

Or trying to find ways to invest it to make sure the money doesn't disappear. Then if family fond out and they're a bit scummy that opens up a whole new can of worms.

[hejammy]

On 04/12/2020 at 20:42, Otis said:

People who only play the Lotto when it's a mega rollover jackpot.

The irony with this is that the more people that play the less your chance of winning. Play when it's a lesser amount (still albeit life changing for most people) and you have more chance of winning. Its the greed that kills it, let's face it £40m or £400m either one is a shite load of cash. 

[Aus Fox]

25 minutes ago, hejammy said:

The irony with this is that the more people that play the less your chance of winning. Play when it's a lesser amount (still albeit life changing for most people) and you have more chance of winning. Its the greed that kills it, let's face it £40m or £400m either one is a shite load of cash. 

The more people playing have zero affect on your chances of winning. There are still 49 balls and you still have to pick the 6 that come out.

No matter how many play, your odds remain about 1:14,000,000 maybe slightly less, I haven’t done the exact maths. 

[hejammy]

4 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

The more people playing have zero affect on your chances of winning. There are still 49 balls and you still have to pick the 6 that come out.

No matter how many play, your odds remain about 1:14,000,000 maybe slightly less, I haven’t done the exact maths. 

When I meant less chance. In the sense that the more people playing the less likely you will receive that "roll over amount" all by yourself. Wasn't clear with that perhaps 

[Nalis]

If you need to do something you dont really want to do (eg  work project, general life etc), why do you suddenly do absolutely everything in your power not to do it?

 

I know its a diversion tactic but why do you not just think ' dont want to do this but it needs to be done and its causing more grief thinking about it rather than actually doing it'?

[Free Falling Foxes]

1 hour ago, Aus Fox said:

The more people playing have zero affect on your chances of winning. There are still 49 balls and you still have to pick the 6 that come out.

No matter how many play, your odds remain about 1:14,000,000 maybe slightly less, I haven’t done the exact maths

Isn't it 59 balls now?

If so, the chances are 1:45 million I believe.

Edited 6 December 2020 by Free Falling Foxes

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, hejammy said:

When I meant less chance. In the sense that the more people playing the less likely you will receive that "roll over amount" all by yourself. Wasn't clear with that perhaps 

45 million to one or 30 million to one, it's still a pretty slim chance, but you have the same chance as the last person that won it. 

[DennisNedry]

I can't get my head around the huge differences in development between humans on different continents. Why, for example, did European countries develop so much more quickly than other peoples around the globe? People use colonialism as a way to partially explain current differences in global development, but how did we arrive in Africa/North America etc in the first place with such a more advanced (not necessarily 'better') society than the indigenous people? How, even today, can there still be indigenous tribes in the Amazon that never progressed beyond hunter gathering? 

[Otis]

40 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

I can't get my head around the huge differences in development between humans on different continents. Why, for example, did European countries develop so much more quickly than other peoples around the globe? People use colonialism as a way to partially explain current differences in global development, but how did we arrive in Africa/North America etc in the first place with such a more advanced (not necessarily 'better') society than the indigenous people? How, even today, can there still be indigenous tribes in the Amazon that never progressed beyond hunter gathering? 

Brains isn't it

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I can't get my head around the huge differences in development between humans on different continents. Why, for example, did European countries develop so much more quickly than other peoples around the globe? People use colonialism as a way to partially explain current differences in global development, but how did we arrive in Africa/North America etc in the first place with such a more advanced (not necessarily 'better') society than the indigenous people? How, even today, can there still be indigenous tribes in Amazon that never progressed beyond hunter gathering? 

Hope you're not referring to their employees. 

Just joshing. But that said, I'm still surprised when I watch a National Geographic documentary from some far flung place with people with massive holes in their earlobes with their kids wearing a ManU/Barcelona (or any world popular footie team) shirt. 

Edited 6 December 2020 by Parafox

[bovril]

2 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I can't get my head around the huge differences in development between humans on different continents. Why, for example, did European countries develop so much more quickly than other peoples around the globe? People use colonialism as a way to partially explain current differences in global development, but how did we arrive in Africa/North America etc in the first place with such a more advanced (not necessarily 'better') society than the indigenous people? How, even today, can there still be indigenous tribes in the Amazon that never progressed beyond hunter gathering? 

Depends what your timeframe is. European nations have not always been at the forefront of societal and technological advances. 

[Parafox]

That if Jules Bianchi hadn't been fatally injured in F1 5 years ago, there would never have been a "halo" and Grosjean would have died last week. Circumstances I can't get my head around.

So many things I've seen that in any other circumstance would have had a completely different outcome. Is there such a thing as fate or are we just subject to happenstance?

Edited 6 December 2020 by Parafox

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I can't get my head around the huge differences in development between humans on different continents. Why, for example, did European countries develop so much more quickly than other peoples around the globe? People use colonialism as a way to partially explain current differences in global development, but how did we arrive in Africa/North America etc in the first place with such a more advanced (not necessarily 'better') society than the indigenous people? How, even today, can there still be indigenous tribes in the Amazon that never progressed beyond hunter gathering? 

Other than the shipbuiliding and (possibly) warfare, how do we know the European civilisations were more advanced at the time they crossed over? Nothing is left of those civilisations to be sure and what records we have of them are written by the "winners" so may not be reliable.

 

However, for a person who knows much more about this than I do, I'd strongly recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel as it offers a damn good answer to this question (though it does ignore the human factor a bit too much).

 

6 hours ago, bovril said:

Depends what your timeframe is. European nations have not always been at the forefront of societal and technological advances. 

East Asia, in particular, innovated a lot of technological developments a long time before Europe - as did the first Islamic caliphates while Europe was still reeling from the destruction of the Roman Empire. It's easy to forget that there was a millennium between the fall of the Roman Empire and the start of the Renaissance most of Europe was basically developmentally stagnant while all kinds of innovation was going on elsewhere.

Edited 7 December 2020 by leicsmac

[Buce]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Other than the shipbuiliding and (possibly) warfare, how do we know the European civilisations were more advanced at the time they crossed over? Nothing is left of those civilisations to be sure and what records we have of them are written by the "winners" so may not be reliable.

 

However, for a person who knows much more about this than I do, I'd strongly recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel as it offers a damn good answer to this question (though it does ignore the human factor a bit too much).

 

East Asia, in particular, innovated a lot of technological developments a long time before Europe - as did the first Islamic caliphates while Europe was still reeling from the destruction of the Roman Empire. It's easy to forget that there was a millennium between the fall of the Roman Empire and the start of the Renaissance most of Europe was basically developmentally stagnant while all kinds of innovation was going on elsewhere.

 

If Alexanda the Great had met the Chinese (he came tantalisingly close), the two cultures would have had between them the knowledge of how to make a steam engine. How different might the World look now, I wonder?

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

If Alexanda the Great had met the Chinese (he came tantalisingly close), the two cultures would have had between them the knowledge of how to make a steam engine. How different might the World look now, I wonder?

And it's a fair bet the Greek philosophers and their Chinese counterparts would have been able to figure out how to put one together. It would have had to have been wood fired of course and so nowhere near as efficient or powerful as what the Industrial Revolution came up with in the end, but yes - imagine the Age of Steam coming two millennia early.

[Buce]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And it's a fair bet the Greek philosophers and their Chinese counterparts would have been able to figure out how to put one together. It would have had to have been wood fired of course and so nowhere near as efficient or powerful as what the Industrial Revolution came up with in the end, but yes - imagine the Age of Steam coming two millennia early.

 

How so?

 

Coal was mined thousands of years ago (in Ancient China, among other places)

[FerrisBueller]

Eggs, as in chicken eggs. How the frig does the shell form in such a small space of time?

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

How so?

 

Coal was mined thousands of years ago (in Ancient China, among other places)

I honestly wasn't aware that coal was exploited (and more specifically used for widespread burning) so early - you never stop learning.

 

I guess it's something of a blessing that such a meeting between Alexander and the Chinese didn't happen, then - goodness knows how ancient civilisations would have dealt with water and air pollution of the degree caused by widespread coal burning ala the 19th Century, if at all.

 

Edit: though perhaps a steam-driven technological advance might have gotten them to solutions in the same way it has done two millennia later.

Edited 7 December 2020 by leicsmac

[DennisNedry]

23 hours ago, bovril said:

Depends what your timeframe is. European nations have not always been at the forefront of societal and technological advances. 

Agreed, this makes it all the more interesting. 

 

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Other than the shipbuiliding and (possibly) warfare, how do we know the European civilisations were more advanced at the time they crossed over? Nothing is left of those civilisations to be sure and what records we have of them are written by the "winners" so may not be reliable.

 

However, for a person who knows much more about this than I do, I'd strongly recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel as it offers a damn good answer to this question (though it does ignore the human factor a bit too much).

 

East Asia, in particular, innovated a lot of technological developments a long time before Europe - as did the first Islamic caliphates while Europe was still reeling from the destruction of the Roman Empire. It's easy to forget that there was a millennium between the fall of the Roman Empire and the start of the Renaissance most of Europe was basically developmentally stagnant while all kinds of innovation was going on elsewhere.

Thank you very much for this recommendation - I've googled the book and it looks very interesting. It's on my Christmas list. 

[Costock_Fox]

Are you even Vegan if you don’t tell everyone at least 10 times a day that you are vegan?

[Jon the Hat]

18 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

Are you even Vegan if you don’t tell everyone at least 10 times a day that you are vegan?

I think that is on the requirements list.  See also "going plant based".  "I've been plant based for 3 months now and I feel great"  Who cares?

[SpacedX]

Oasis. 

[Costock_Fox]

47 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think that is on the requirements list.  See also "going plant based".  "I've been plant based for 3 months now and I feel great"  Who cares?

Someone I follow on instagram has to tell all of their followers that they are vegan at least 3x a day. Whether that’s a t shirt, their Instagram name of posts of vegan food. **** off and eat a kebab 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Costock_Fox said:

Someone I follow on instagram has to tell all of their followers that they are vegan at least 3x a day. Whether that’s a t shirt, their Instagram name of posts of vegan food. **** off and eat a kebab 

 

 

[Costock_Fox]

43 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

Not a legitimate kebab unfortunately.