Just checked. Mine still say this:
Comment redacted in protest against Reddit’s deranged attacks against third party apps, the community, and common sense.
See ya’ll in Lemmy or Kbin once this embarrassment of a site is done enshittifying itself out of existence.
Monetize this, u/spez, you greedy little pigboy. 🖕
(I edited them manually, though, so maybe it’s that…)
Y’know that physics principle called the lever principle, or principle of moment…?
Thing is, if you grab a bottle by the neck and try to tilt it, you have to deal with the whole momentum / mass of the bottle, which is a significant amount of torque on your wrist, especially if you’re awkwardly trying to hold a cap that’s clearly not designed to be held this way at the same time.
If you instead violently rip the cap out in an entirely justified fit of righteous rage and grab the bottle by it’s center of mass, as normal people do and have done since bottles have existed (well, except for the cap bit; that shit is rather new), you can effortlessly spin it to whatever angle you want, with perfect control all the way.
Of course you can always hold it with two hands, which might be what you meant, but that’s a rather stupid waste of a free hand when most bottles are designed to be holdable with one single hand.
Luckily I’m not American, but I’ve never seen one of these contraptions that didn’t spin freely (and most of the ones I’ve seen spin freely and dangle all over the place, since the cap is tethered to the ring with a flexible strip of plastic).
It’s a weight attached to a ring placed around a cylinder, after all. It’s bound to spin freely, it’s inherent to the design.
You can rotate the bottle before taking a sip to position it such that the cap doesn’t hit your face.
And gravity will make the cap spin around, hit your face, get in the way of the liquid, and make it splash everywhere but your mouth.
You can also pour liquid out of the bottle without having it run into the cap using the same rotation technique before pouring.
Same issue. As soon as you tip the bottle the cap will spin (apparently whatever genius designed this useless annoyance didn’t realise that bottle necks are cylindrical), get in the way of the liquid, and make it spill everywhere but the container you’re trying to pour it into.
They’re like a Pythagorean cup without the temperance lesson and well thought out design.
The only way to use these without wasting 99% of the liquid and making a mess is to either awkwardly try to hold them up as you pour, or to violently rip them out before pouring in an entirely justified fit of righteous rage.
What an utterly infuriating waste of plastic, time, and money.
Why rename the files when you could just categorise and index them…?
This seems unnecessarily destructive.
Auto save is extremely dangerous and should be off by default. Computers should never do things, especially with important documents, without the user telling them to. If the user wants to save the file, they’ll tell the computer to save the file. If they don’t tell the computer to save the file, they clearly don’t want the file saved (if they do want it saved and expect the computer to do it for them without being told to, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a computer, sharp objects, or open flames, as they clearly could be a danger to themselves and others).
First thing I do when using a new Windows computer is turn single click back on. Well, either that or show file extensions.
Exactly. I don’t want my computer doing things without me telling it to. If I want it to save the file I will tell it to save the file. If I don’t tell it to save the file, I most definitely don’t want it to save it behind my back. Auto save is an anti-pattern, especially if it overwrites your manual save files.
(Saving an independent recovery file, preferably including undo and redo history, might come in handy in case of crashes, sure, but it should be optional and never on by default, out of privacy concerns; other users might use the computer, and it’s safer to assume that the previous user might not want others to see the documents they had open last time.)
And “save as” every few times (or every time if the document is important).
I lost a lot of work hours once because I was using a program that saved a backup copy every time you saved (so that you’d always be able to recover the previous version), and the damn thing crashed while saving, thus corrupting both the save file and the backup. Never. Again. Hard drive space is less expensive than my time and what’s left of my mental health.
I can’t imagine the ancients having the same building codes for wage earners as they do now
Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa, and other Indus valley civilization cities had grid layouts 4,600 years ago; Egypt used grid layouts around the same time; Babylon, 15th century BCE China, classical Greece and Rome, Teotihuacan… turns out that grid layouts have been the go-to for planned cities pretty much since people came up with the idea of planning cities. 🤷♂️
On the sidewalks; hard to see in that light, and the picture might have been taken in autumn or winter, but I replied elsewhere in the thread with a picture showing how many of them there actually are (or just look up pictures with the keyword “eixample” and you’ll find there’s actually quite a bit of green between the blocks).
(And also parks, of course; there’s two of them in the picture right next to the basilica, but, again, in this yellow light you can’t see the green.)
Ah, that might indeed be it, cathedral = the seat (of a bishop), and it’s bishops you can’t have too many of in the same place, lest you get a schism.
Don’t blame Cerdà. Every block was supposed to have a park or square in it. They were never intended to have buildings on all four sides, three at most, mainly two (in parallel or as an L) or even only one. And then history and economics and politics happened.
cathedral
Basilica, technically. As I understand it you can only have one cathedral per city, for some bureaucratic and / or religious reason, and Barcelona already had one. 🤷♂️
All of it, really; mix of old and new buildings, different styles… And the Eixample (the part in the picture) looks much different from the ground.
Yeah, sorry, I realised it wasn’t clear which part I was referring to after I had already posted it. 😅
If you mean the one in the back that’s slightly off-angle from the grid, my guess for that is that the road existed before the modern city did and wasn’t removed to create the grid. Or it might be a rail line.
Nope, that’s Diagonal Avenue, one of the cities main thoroughfares; it was part of the original design of the Eixample, intended to break the monotony of the grid, together with the north-south Meridiana Avenue.
The one going straight to the basilica is Gaudí Avenue, named after Antoni Gaudí, the architect who designed the Sagrada Família (as well as other landmarks like Park Güell, Casa Milà / La Pedrera, or Casa Batlló); it was designed to connect the two landmarks of the Sagrada Família and the former Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (today a UNESCO world heritage site).
The one in the background is Diagonal Avenue (no, really), one of the main thoroughfares in the city, intended by Ildefons Cerdà (designer of the Eixample) to cut through his grid layout together with Meridiana Avenue (which roughly follows the Paris meridian, or rather the Barcelona-Dunkerke one; there’s also the perpendicular Paral·lel Avenue, of course, though sadly they don’t cross), crossing at the Plaça de les Glòries Catalanes, which Cerdà intended to become the new city centre (alas, the Plaça Catalunya, some 17 blocks to the south, ended up taking that role).
There are trees on the sidewalks.
Turning off or rebooting your computer isn’t good for it.
(It’s not as bad as turning it on, of course, but once you’ve made that mistake you should leave it on.)