Did ancient Greeks wear pants? Maybe he ripped them off a barbarian? Euripides actually mentions pants and mocks them.

It could actually get us all the way to LEGOland, if it wasn't so stubborn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

For anyone wondering

You're probably getting a bit confused because Herod was from a Hebrew royal dynasty, but his successful ascent to the throne (after bloody internal power struggles in the region, and even within the same Herodic royal family) was a direct product of Rome aiding him and installing him militarily.

I'm not confused about this. It was a client kingdom, not a Roman province until 6 CE, which is when the Census of Quirinius (the one you mentioned Josephus recording) was done to reckon what taxes should be levied.

The Gospel of Luke uses the Census of Quirinius to date the birth of Jesus but also cites the time of Herod the Great (who died between 5 BCE and 1 CE), while the Gospel of Matthew only references Herod the Great. Most critical scholars agree that Luke is in error, while some religious scholars have attempted to defend the gospel, sometimes invoking unproven claims.

(Emphasis mine)

In order to install an ad valorem property tax in the new province, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, the legate (governor) of the province of Roman Syria starting in 6 CE,[2] was assigned to carry out a census in Judaea.

Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors.

Is it possible you've been misinformed about how historically accurate the bible is?

Giraffes? Giraffes!

Oh I thought we were having fun.

A census is meant to document how many people live where. Everyone going to their ancestral town doesn't make sense. And would obviously cause so much economic harm that the Romans would never demand it. I understand that there is evidence of travelling workers being instructed to go to their home towns, but that is very different from going to an ancestral town. Also wasn't the region under Herod at the time, not formally part of the Roman empire? Augustus wouldn't decree a census in a client kingdom, he would have herod make the decree wouldn't he? It's obviously invented as apologia for why Jesus can be the prophesied messiah even though he is a Nazarene not a Bethlehemite. It doesn't stand up to the smallest amount of critical thought.

The only reason I can think of for someone to need to go from Nazareth to Bethlehem for a census is if they were up to some sort of tax fraud. A tax fraudster would surely skimp on temple sacrifices as well.

Shifts team to generative AI.

If your car development team can be transferred to AI developement you weren't building much of a car.

Uncles aren't in your blood line, but maybe he knows something about your Grandpa

I'm not a law talking guy, this isn't the law, and it isn't ethical best practice but it might help people understand the reasonableness of the poster.

I believe it's true that drunk people can't consent. I think that what juries are likely to actually care about is the question:

Did the accused have the reasonable belief that the plaintiff would consent to sex while sober?

If you're in a police interview or a trial and are asked:

What made you think the plaintiff consented to your actions?

And all you can say without perjuring yourself is:

I vaguely recall that they seemed kinda into it, and they didn't say no, oh! and they didn't fight back.

You're going to have a bad time. ESPECIALLY if you've been drinking, because it will be easier to question the reasonableness of your belief in their consent.

This poster is clearly meant for a place similar to a university dormitory.

This poster is bad because: it makes the law seem lopsided, and perpetuates sexist ideas about gender and sex.

The poster is good because: unfortunately, too many men think that if a girl is drunk at a place where he thinks the girls are looking for drunk hookups, that she consents to whatever she doesn't fight (and maybe more). Too many men misunderstand consent and have dangerous ideas about what women really want. It's much better they be scared into over thinking whether they're risking arrest than that they rape somebody.

Obviously more nuance is good, but if you're trying to stop drunk 18 year olds from raping/being raped, taping up a poster like this in the stairwell is more effective than taping up an essay.

I seem to recall Diogenes replied:

Likewise: if I were not Diogenes I too would wish I were Diogenes

I mean it's all probably made up but what a guy.

If you took all the DNA from every cell of one person and laid it in a straight line they would die

Another way of thinking about it is betting your entire bankroll for 99.9....% certainty that you will win $1.

Say you go into the casino with $1000.

Bet:

$1 lose.
$3 lose.
$9 lose.
$27 lose.
$81 lose.
$243 lose.
$729 oh wait you can't bet that much, you only have $457 left. Dang, do you bet $457 or find another $272? 

Bet $457 and you win $914! Congrats you're now only down $86!
Or maybe you lost and are down $1000.

Or maybe you scrounged up $272 so you could keep playing
Bet 729 and lose. Now you're down $1272.
Or
Bet 729 and you win 1458. Pay back the $272 you borrowed from your buddy, you're still up $186. 
You just bet $729 dollars for a %50 chance of winning $186.

But what are the chances of getting 6 or 7 losses in a row? 1 in 64, or 128 respectively, actually worse because roulette wheels aren't 50/50, they're 18/19 (18 wins and 19 losses in 37 plays on average) or worse. So losing 6 times in a row will happen 1 in 54 plays, 7 losses is 1 in 106.

Google says roulette wheels spin 55 times per hour so with your strategy you will lose your bank roll in about one hour assuming your starting bet is 0.1% of your bank roll.

Shouldn't that be like contempt of congress or something?

IIRC Abraham Lincoln once jumped out a window to prevent quorum for a vote his side would lose.

Hey I love this meme everytime I see it, but I want to point out that that point about growing up in "similar circumstances that nurture their skill' is contingent upon working musicians being able to afford to raise children. Children that will also need to work.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think there is a comparable proportion of the population that are working musicians, that earn enough money to support children, but not so much that the children don't have to learn a trade, as there were in "Enlightenment" Europe where if a person wanted to hear music they had to make it themselves, or pay someone to make it, and every rich asshole had a chamber orchestra following him around.

Also parents don't teach children their trades the way they used to, and they aren't expected to support their parent's businesses the way they used to. (I'm not lamenting this). There used to be a lot of pressure on children to contribute economically. Mozart, and his siblings probably faced what we'd consider child abuse if he didn't practice. He was certainly exploited.

Michael Jackson is a Mozart of the 20th century. He was put to work at a young age to support his parents and siblings, that were also working musicians.

As much as I love Weird Al (and I do) I don't think he was groomed and exploited the same way MJ/WM were. Kudos to his parents for that I guess.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that Tesla had a sign that says "heil" in Tesla's font manufactured and installed on their factory next to their name. It's a projection by a protestor to draw attention to Musk's Nazism.

At least there are no centrists in here claiming it's 3.5

It's not, but it seems Argentina doesn't think people should be allowed to own their phones.

I don't think jewelry wearing is compatible with the Amish conception of propriety and modesty but I'm not going to say it wouldn't happen.