“If this coffee is the most dark and bitter part of my day, I’ll consider myself lucky.”

It was happening long before TMNT. Transformers, He-man, Teddy Ruxbin, Gummie Bears, She-ra, Care Bears, etc. I’m no expert on which was the first, but I’m sure that the kids that watched it would be too old to really get into TMNT once that IP hit the market. TMNT wasn’t even really inspired by toys, the comic was first, they just heavy exploited the toy market later. Shows like Care Bears and transformers were created specifically to sell toys as opposed to designing toys to sell a show.

I’d like to see ideas like this make a comeback, hopefully with some modifications this time around to protect our privacy and resist corporate exploitation.

We used to use del.icio.us and other variants to do exactly this before browsers had profiles. Back then, its primary draw was that you could take your bookmarks with you anywhere to any machine (this being before that function was baked into browsers and before web browsers could be carried in your pocket). The secondary effect was that you’d share and tag those websites with your own categories/descriptors, thus crowdsourcing a new version of the old web’s link directories using Web 2.0. You could browse through symantic tag clouds to discover new things. Del.icio.us was for websites, but people were tagging and logging all of their favorite stuff and sharing it online so that like minded strangers could filled the gaps in their cultural awareness. We tagged our books with librarything. We tagged recipes with recipe thing. Audioscrobbler (later known as last.fm) logged our music listening to automate the tagging, not by direct symantic tagging, but by relational/temporal coincidence. If other people that listened to a lot of the stuff you listened to and they also listened to some other stuff you didn’t, those became recommendations for you. That kind of relational algorithm would survive the slow death of Web2.0 to become the backbone of recommendation services like Spotify and probably even TikTok.

All tortoises are turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises. Generally tortoise implies that it is mostly land based, but it’s not a rigorous definition. You can call all of them turtles all day long and still be correct, but that doesn’t mean that American English doesn’t still have the same connotations for turtle and tortoise that British English does.

That’s not true at all. American English absolutely differentiates them in exactly the same way.

deleted by creator

Her response: “That’s not even a question.”

What are you talking about? The pink one has a line of scary warning symbols including a skull and crossbones just under the word humectant.

deleted by creator

That Wikipedia article is surprisingly silent on Norris’ support of Trump.

I’m gonna guess that it’s durian ice cream.

That’s basically what these do. What’s the difficulty?

They should be equally acceptable without needing to be sexualized. But even if you like seeing tits, the best way to see other’s is to not be weird, dehumanizing, or non-consenting about it. That’s like the 1 rule of etiquette anyway, try within reason to not make other people uncomfortable.

I disagree on ever single point you’ve said here.

Sounds like a skill issue. Good translation is hard and is rarely a literal one to one mapping of syntax and diction. It’s an interpretive art.

Sounds like a skill issue. Bad translations are bad because they don’t find good ways to translate these kinds of things. As you say, translation isn’t just about the words, it’s about cultural context. But, bad translations aren’t inevitable just because good translations are difficult.

It only does this for things (usually municipal or government related) with a well defined, continuous, and singluar boundary. Search for nearby Lake Buena Vista, City of Orlando, or Orange County and Google Earth behaves exactly that way. But Disney’s land holdings are likely not completely contiguous.

Logically most people would want to see the boundary of all the Disney things when they search for Disney World, but that’s also not a real region with a well defined simple boundary Google can show and so it doesn’t. Google Earth can represent points (or geolocated 3D buildings that are essentially points), lines (like roads), polygons, and elevation. In fact, you can force Google to do this by collecting the pins of various locations into a list. When you select the list, Google zooms to the level that shows them all. But Google Maps would be the tool to search for “all the Disney properties” or “all the burrito places near me” to get quick and made to order lists like this, Google Earth simply isn’t built to to that.

So you’re new to reading maps? Is that the joke? Because the resort is the collection of all the various parks. Magic Kingdom is just to the north, Epcot is off to the east a bit, Hollywood Studios (now a part of Disney) is to the southeast, just south of Epcot, Blizzard Beach is mostly south and a little west, Animal Kingdom is south west, the Disney Golf courses are northwest. This point is basically the centeroid of all of those places because none of them are Disney World alone, they are only Disney World in the collective. It’s not like Disneyland, which is a single park in the middle of town. Yes, they built in a swamp. What you’ve zoomed into is undeveloped land that I’m pretty sure Disney owns.

So, yes, that is Disney world, but I wouldn’t send you a closeup of my nipple if you asked for a selfie.

It’s because the precision is overstated in the conversion to imperial. If they’re going to convert units they could at least give the correct significant digits. It should have read (if one insists on not just leaving it in metric):

• Operational altitude: nearly 1 mile (1.5km)
• Weight: Under 1 ton (imperial or metric. Take your pick, it hardly matter.)

NJ won’t even let them pump gas.