10% humidity is pretty standard for us. Moisture will evaporate before it soaks into the ground.
The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XLII
- Thread starter GinandTonic
- Start date
- Status
Ferocitus
Deity
Similar to Adelaide.
I feel for places like Sydney and Brisbane when it gets to >40C and >75% humidity.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
Just off the top of my head, I would say that it's reasonable to call someone "extremist" if they use violence. I think violence as a means of achieving political goals is an indicator that conventional means of achieving those goals aren't insufficient or unavailable. The most clear-cut example would be any form of terrorism, but I think it would also be true for people or ambitions that we might regard as benevolent or justified. The revolutionary founders of the United States could be called "political extremists" in the context of the British Empire ca. 1775.
I think there might be people for whom the violence is the point and the political statement is just a convenient excuse, but it would be hard to know when that's the case. Anyway, someone who's just a thug might be manipulated into violence by someone with a political agenda who's unwilling to get their own hands dirty. I think there are probably times when having a population of easily-manipulated thugs might be a requirement for an extremist political movement to gain any momentum. A truly cunning sociopath who merely uses a political cause as a convenience is probably rare.
I'm thinking about whether a group that's under occupation would be considered "extremists" - the French Resistance is the example I'm wrestling with, in my head. My knee-jerk reaction is to reject calling them "extremists", but maybe I should, under the rule-of-thumb outline above. They were under a state of war, for one thing, and I don't know if they attacked civilian targets, which is an important criteria for labeling something an act of terrorism.
EDIT: I'm also thinking about someone like the Unabomber, who had some mental illness(es). His political stance might have been secondary to his mental illness, or vice-versa, I'm not sure. If ostensibly-political violence is driven primarily by mental illness, then I'm not sure it's useful to call that person a political extremist. Any time we might be in danger of criminalizing illness, I think it's important to steer the other way, even if we run the risk over-correcting.
Last edited:
I think extremism can only be defined in reference to the prevailing views. So if everyone was on board with violence (eg. Ukraine) then it is the pacifist that is the extremist.
If you could accurately define political views in a dimensional way (eg. the political compass) then I would define it as the points furthest from the "centre of gravity" of the population. This is probably impossible to do in a way that most people will agree though.
If you could accurately define political views in a dimensional way (eg. the political compass) then I would define it as the points furthest from the "centre of gravity" of the population. This is probably impossible to do in a way that most people will agree though.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
Yeah, I wouldn't say that violence is the sole definition of an extremist, only that it's a useful hallmark, because if someone is using violence to achieve a political goal, it means they're outside the boundaries of their society in some way. If you find yourself in a situation where "everyone is on board with violence" it means society has fundamentally broken down. In the case of a war between nations, the "society" would be the international order between those states, whatever the international order was. The violence is an indicator that the opposing political positions have drifted so far apart that at least one of them is "extremist." And of course you could have two extremist individuals or groups come to blows.
I've never been able to decide whether a fixed political compass is useful. In a specific context, I guess I don't mind them, but I'm always ready to set them aside as soon as they don't map onto reality anymore. If I need to measure a volume of water, what good does a 12" ruler do me?
I posted this before:
I think we could do it such that we really could say how it maps to the reality we see on this forum at least. When you have the data you can map both the effect of each question on the whole result and our and others position within the multi dimensional space.
Spoiler Something like this :
So they don't fray and rip and maybe snag on stuff.
Mind you, I'm the person who decided not to bother even trying to mend the t-shirt Maddy put many holes in due to either jumping up on me or me cuddling her when she had really sharp claws.
Does anyone know how to check if a water-meter (thus the water-supply) is closed? I mean only by looking at stuff at the meter or anything tied to it (can't examine the place to see if it has running water).
And I am talking about this type of ancient water-meter:
Would the lid missing (being removed?) be a tell-tale sign of anything? (because I can see only one of the meters there has a missing lid).
And I am talking about this type of ancient water-meter:
Would the lid missing (being removed?) be a tell-tale sign of anything? (because I can see only one of the meters there has a missing lid).
You mean is the tap that is visible on the right closed or open? Try it? If it turns one way and not the other you have an answer, if it turn neither way it is stuck (but you do not know what position), if it turns both ways then it is half open.
Hi, this photo is just one I found on the web, of a very similar looking water-meter. It's not the one I am working with.
You are talking about the faucet-type thing? What should I try with it? I haven't touched it yet. I do know for a fact that the water is out in a specific area, but don't know (for a fact) which meter is the one controlling that area. If it is the meter I am looking at, what should I try with the faucet to make sure?
PS: I do have access to the area, so if that is needed to check, I can do that. But I have to know if it can be done without that (by checking at the faucet etc). At any rate, please say for both states (both can be done).
Try turning it with your hand. Odds are it will only turn one way, if you can turn it clockwise it is currently off, if you can turn it anticlockwise it is currently on. The issue will be if it is too stiff to turn at all. Then you have to choose between using some form of leverage and possibly breaking it or trying WD40 or some other lubricant.
Ok, I will try.
Well, I can't turn anything, but it doesn't matter since I suspect the actual flow is controlled not by the faucet but something that needs very special tools. And apparently the water-company employee locked the wrong one
(a bad error, but it is a bit labyrinthine there)We will see.
That is always a problem with these things, they get used once every few years and get crudded up. You could try spraying it with WD40 if you have a can, but there will frequently be a separate water board controlled isolator that is the real cause of the problem.Well, I can't turn anything, but it doesn't matter since I suspect the actual flow is controlled not by the faucet but something that needs very special tools. And apparently the water-company employee locked the wrong one
We will see.
Spoiler You do have WD40 dont you :
I can't risk breaking stuff
Besides, they covered something (a valve that gets locked/loosened) with a blue stamp (covered it; can't operate it at all), and I have to suppose this was the intervention that closed the water. And that one seems (going by the legend at the wall of the water-meter space) to be of the space that has no water now.BUT, the water was closed not due to debt, but fear of a leak (massive bill), and I have to establish under what name the bill for that space is signed. There are two stores in that building, and only one of those is ours. The water was closed in ours, but going by the water-meter legend the valve they locked is tied to a very small bill and no possibility of a leak. So it seems to be a mistake by the water-company guy, but we will contact them etc.
Another sign they made an error is that (assuming, again, the legend is correct and was correctly read by myself), the water-company guy left a note for a name he wrote down (and is on the bill of one of the stores) that doesn't correspond to the valve he locked.
Thanks, but the water is cut off; nothing runs. I will wait for the water-company guy to come and see if they made a rather embarrassing mistake
(if the legend is correct, that's what happened)
If the little dial in the middle is not moving, no water is flowing. when it turns, it means that water is going into the building.
- Status
Similar threads
