TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML)
-
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Watson said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
Actually it would be the opposite of the belief that a standing army shouldn't exist at all. Without any standing army, an army must needs be conscripted if hostilities should arise.
That's what the militia was for.
The militia wasn't a standing army. It was literally just anybody who owned guns and knew which end of a gun to point at the enemy.
That should excluye ar least half of C programers
-
@brie look at the Article Five in the column "Seventeen Articles Approved by the House":
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
-
@djls45 said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
I can't remember where I heard it, but someone said that European universities assign a ton of reading material and require pretty much only essays for homework, in contrast to American universities, which assign only a few reading assignments, but have a lot of problems to solve for homework and only a few essays for mostly in-class work. Does that fit your experience?
Varies hugely between universities and subjects and teachers. WTF-U assigns few essays to its students on CS courses, whereas they comprise a very large fraction of what the students on the MBA course produce.
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie look at the Article Five in the column "Seventeen Articles Approved by the House":
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Yes, and? It was proposed, but the Senate rejected that portion of the amendment. To become law, it needed to be approved by both sides of Congress, not just by the House. The literal text of the Bill of Rights says nothing at all about conscription.
If I'm not going to speculate, assume, or try to interpret their meaning, then all I can look at is the literal text of what they actually passed. I don't know why they proposed that. I don't know why they rejected it. All I know is that they did reject it, so it's not in the law. Those religiously scrupulous of bearing arms may be compelled to render military service, and have been at compelled to at various points in the nation's history.
-
@brie do you even understand the word draft? I never said it was ever a law. Just that it was proposed. And that many politicians supported it.
If I'm not going to speculate, assume, or try to interpret their meaning, then all I can look at is the literal text of what they actually passed.
And everything else they've written. Drafts, comments, journal articles, letters, personal diaries, etc. etc. etc. It's not speculating or assuming. It's literally reading what they've written. We can be pretty certain that if someone has written, voted for, or signed under something, then that at the time of writing, voting or signing, they've supported the idea.
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie look at the Article Five in the column "Seventeen Articles Approved by the House":
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
That was by no means a (proposed) complete ban on conscription. That was a (proposed) exemption for religious pacifists (like Quakers, which made up a significant portion of the population in Pennsylvania).
-
@HardwareGeek it would constitute a de facto ban on conscription, as pacifist people would be very quick to join (or create their own) anti-war religions, similar to how some people joined the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster just so they can have a ID photo with colander on their head.
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie do you even understand the word draft? I never said it was ever a law. Just that it was proposed. And that many politicians supported it.
If I'm not going to speculate, assume, or try to interpret their meaning, then all I can look at is the literal text of what they actually passed.
And everything else they've written. Drafts, comments, journal articles, letters, personal diaries, etc. etc. etc. It's not speculating or assuming. It's literally reading what they've written. We can be pretty certain that if someone has written, voted for, or signed under something, then that at the time of writing, voting or signing, they've supported the idea.
And if they didn't actually pass said drafts, then we can be pretty certain that they didn't.
A handful of them did support it, maybe, but not enough to make it law.
-
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie do you even understand the word draft? I never said it was ever a law. Just that it was proposed. And that many politicians supported it.
If I'm not going to speculate, assume, or try to interpret their meaning, then all I can look at is the literal text of what they actually passed.
And everything else they've written. Drafts, comments, journal articles, letters, personal diaries, etc. etc. etc. It's not speculating or assuming. It's literally reading what they've written. We can be pretty certain that if someone has written, voted for, or signed under something, then that at the time of writing, voting or signing, they've supported the idea.
And if they didn't actually pass said drafts, then we can be pretty certain that they didn't.
The House did.
A handful of them did support it, maybe, but not enough to make it law.
Have I ever said otherwise?
Also, a quick reminder that your original claim that I disagreed with was that even the supporters of that clause - that handful you're talking about, who weren't numerous enough to make it a law, but still have undeniably supported that clause as written - didn't actually want to ban conscription entirely, but only regulate the circumstances of when it's allowed. I agree with everything else you said, except this one thing.
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
Also, a quick reminder that your original claim that I disagreed with was that even the supporters of that clause - that handful you're talking about, who weren't numerous enough to make it a law, but still have undeniably supported that clause as written - didn't actually want to ban conscription entirely, but only regulate the circumstances of when it's allowed. I agree with everything else you said, except this one thing.
Now look who's assuming? You agree with me, then, because I didn't say that. I was speaking of the legal body collectively, in saying that they got their concerns addressed without banning conscription entirely. No doubt a few of them did want to ban it entirely, and were unhappy with the final law, but the body as a whole decided that the problems with conscription could be adequately solved without banning it.
Essentially this whole thing is an interesting bit of trivia, nothing more. That's why I responded with (what I consider) more interesting trivia about it.
-
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
Also, a quick reminder that your original claim that I disagreed with was that even the supporters of that clause - that handful you're talking about, who weren't numerous enough to make it a law, but still have undeniably supported that clause as written - didn't actually want to ban conscription entirely, but only regulate the circumstances of when it's allowed. I agree with everything else you said, except this one thing.
Now look who's assuming? You agree with me, then, because I didn't say that. I was speaking of the legal body collectively, in saying that they got their concerns addressed without banning conscription entirely.
Well, you could've said that earlier. You could've saved us both a whole page of stupid back and forths. This whole time, I've been under impression you're talking about the authors of THE DRAFT. Because, you know, this whole discussion started with THE DRAFT. Not the final bill. THE DRAFT.
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie do you even understand the word draft? I never said it was ever a law. Just that it was proposed. And that many politicians supported it.
If I'm not going to speculate, assume, or try to interpret their meaning, then all I can look at is the literal text of what they actually passed.
And everything else they've written. Drafts, comments, journal articles, letters, personal diaries, etc. etc. etc. It's not speculating or assuming. It's literally reading what they've written. We can be pretty certain that if someone has written, voted for, or signed under something, then that at the time of writing, voting or signing, they've supported the idea.
Hold on, that would be making assumptions of continuity between documents. Making appeal to the existence of the author also sounds like a dangerous divergence from solid textualism.
-
@Gribnit said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie do you even understand the word draft? I never said it was ever a law. Just that it was proposed. And that many politicians supported it.
If I'm not going to speculate, assume, or try to interpret their meaning, then all I can look at is the literal text of what they actually passed.
And everything else they've written. Drafts, comments, journal articles, letters, personal diaries, etc. etc. etc. It's not speculating or assuming. It's literally reading what they've written. We can be pretty certain that if someone has written, voted for, or signed under something, then that at the time of writing, voting or signing, they've supported the idea.
Hold on, that would be making assumptions of continuity between documents.
"At the time of writing."
Making appeal to the existence of the author also sounds like a dangerous divergence from solid textualism.
Ghosts wrote the Constitution. Splendid theory.
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Gribnit said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie do you even understand the word draft? I never said it was ever a law. Just that it was proposed. And that many politicians supported it.
If I'm not going to speculate, assume, or try to interpret their meaning, then all I can look at is the literal text of what they actually passed.
And everything else they've written. Drafts, comments, journal articles, letters, personal diaries, etc. etc. etc. It's not speculating or assuming. It's literally reading what they've written. We can be pretty certain that if someone has written, voted for, or signed under something, then that at the time of writing, voting or signing, they've supported the idea.
Hold on, that would be making assumptions of continuity between documents.
"At the time of writing."
Making appeal to the existence of the author also sounds like a dangerous divergence from solid textualism.
Ghosts wrote the Constitution. Splendid theory.
Without making assertions about continuity between documents we can't know how much significance to assign to a draft vs a final version.
-
@topspin said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@djls45 said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
Because IME this is not how universities work.
I can't remember where I heard it, but someone said that European universities assign a ton of reading material and require pretty much only essays for homework, in contrast to American universities, which assign only a few reading assignments, but have a lot of problems to solve for homework and only a few essays for mostly in-class work. Does that fit your experience?
The only time I ever had to do an essay was in some stupid philosophy elective, which I promptly quit that moment.
All GE classes require a lot of writing at my university.
-
@Rhywden said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
They had concerns about conscription, considered banning it, then decided not to. And by some coincidence, we also ended up with restrictions on conscription which seemed to address some of the problems with the way the British forces conscripted people. I admit that I am presuming their intentions, but it seems pretty straightforward to assume that these things were related and not coincidental.
Isn't it funny how you're currently interpreting what they meant to say instead of going for the literal text?
Isn't it funny how there were a lot of documents from that time other than the Constitution?
-
@cabrito said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
excluye ar
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
This whole time, I've been under impression you're talking about the authors of THE DRAFT. Because, you know, this whole discussion started with THE DRAFT. Not the final bill. THE DRAFT.
If you want to talk about the authors of the draft, you're going to have to be more granular. Congress is, and was, a large group. Lots of people with lots of opinions varying from slightly to widely on various different topics. The amendments were drafted, debated, modifications and/or alternate drafts were suggested by various other members of Congress, and at the end of it all, they voted and we had the ten amendments that we call the Bill of Rights.
The phrase that you bolded was in the amendments proposed by James Madison. He wrote them. The "authors" was him. I'm not well enough read on James Madison to know what he thought of conscription (at least not in any greater detail than that he evidently opposed it), but as I understand it he wrote quite profusely in the form of letters and/or diaries, so I would imagine he may have covered the subject in his writings elsewhere. If you know of such a document that he wrote, I'd be interested, in particular if they shed light on why he opposed conscription.
This PDF seems like it might be promising, although I've not read it fully:
-
@pie_flavor said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Rhywden said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
They had concerns about conscription, considered banning it, then decided not to. And by some coincidence, we also ended up with restrictions on conscription which seemed to address some of the problems with the way the British forces conscripted people. I admit that I am presuming their intentions, but it seems pretty straightforward to assume that these things were related and not coincidental.
Isn't it funny how you're currently interpreting what they meant to say instead of going for the literal text?
Isn't it funny how there were a lot of documents from that time other than the Constitution?
And not a single one was cited.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/a9fmrg/14_years_ago_the_numa_numa_video_was_uploaded_to/
a quarter of the world was born after this video was uploaded.
-
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
This whole time, I've been under impression you're talking about the authors of THE DRAFT. Because, you know, this whole discussion started with THE DRAFT. Not the final bill. THE DRAFT.
If you want to talk about the authors of the draft, you're going to have to be more granular.
I don't actually.
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
This whole time, I've been under impression you're talking about the authors of THE DRAFT. Because, you know, this whole discussion started with THE DRAFT. Not the final bill. THE DRAFT.
If you want to talk about the authors of the draft, you're going to have to be more granular.
I don't actually.
Then don't be surprised (and blame me) when there are misunderstandings over you not being specific.
-
@brie sure, it's not like you...
Ah, forget it. It's impossible you'll ever see any flaw in yourself, no matter what I say. Do what you want, blame me for you never saying what the fuck you're even talking about, whatever, I don't care.
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie sure, it's not like you...
Ah, forget it. It's impossible you'll ever see any flaw in yourself, no matter what I say. Do what you want, blame me for you never saying what the fuck you're even talking about, whatever, I don't care.
-
@Gribnit everything I said is true, so no, not
.
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Gribnit everything I said is true, so no, not
.
-
@topspin not true. He'd use capslock.
Edit: let's just ignore for a moment that Blakey would never say he's not Blakey.
-
-
@anonymous234 said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
nope, needs to be in context
Your train is badly assembled.
Documentation:
-
@Gribnit said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@anonymous234 said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
nope, needs to be in context
Your train is badly assembled.
Documentation:
I had no issue parsing this, by the way.
-
@Tsaukpaetra you poor bastard
-
@Gribnit said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Tsaukpaetra you poor bastard
Oye! I know who my father is! His name is my name too!
-
@Tsaukpaetra His name is Supermario too?
-
@Gribnit said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@anonymous234 said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
nope, needs to be in context
Your train is badly assembled.
Documentation:
There was a brief period where I enjoyed inserting that into group documents.
-
@Tsaukpaetra You're
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?details>details>la da da da da da da
-
@Gąska said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
You could've saved us both a whole page of stupid back and forths.
YMBNH
-
@Gribnit said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt
Fun fact: my full name fits this song's rhythm. Technically, my first name has one more syllable, but the discrepancy can be resolved either by rushing over the extra syllable as an accidental or by dividing the preceding (long) note into two short ones.
(No, I'm not going to dox myself in a public category.)
-
@djls45 said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
accidental
Are you thinking of an acciaccatura? An accidental is a sharp or flat that doesn't occur in the key signature (or a natural that cancels a sharp or flat that does occur in the key signature).
-
@HardwareGeek Oh, huh. Yeah, I meant ornamental notes. TIL.
-
TIL my father once picked up a black mamba with his bare hands.
"Because I didn't know what it was at the time".
-
@Zecc said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
TIL my father once picked up a black mamba with his bare hands.
"Because I didn't know what it was at the time".Domesticated or in Africa?
-
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
The militia wasn't a standing army.
Exactly my point.
It was literally just anybody who owned guns and knew which end of a gun to point at the enemy.
It's even broader than that if you believe the US Code, which identifies two classes of militia: the "organized", being the National and Coast Guards, and the "unorganized" which is everyone else.
-
@chozang said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Zecc said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
TIL my father once picked up a black mamba with his bare hands.
"Because I didn't know what it was at the time".Domesticated or in Africa?
Africa. It went on to become someone else's belt.
-
@pie_flavor said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@Rhywden said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
@brie said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
They had concerns about conscription, considered banning it, then decided not to. And by some coincidence, we also ended up with restrictions on conscription which seemed to address some of the problems with the way the British forces conscripted people. I admit that I am presuming their intentions, but it seems pretty straightforward to assume that these things were related and not coincidental.
Isn't it funny how you're currently interpreting what they meant to say instead of going for the literal text?
Isn't it funny how there were a lot of documents from that time other than the Constitution?
I'm not the one on this board regularly trotting out the fundamentalist mindset.
-
@Rhywden That is a factual statement.
Am I supposed to... conclude anything here, or...?
-
@pie_flavor the implication seems to be that there is at least one person on this forum (and the structure of that sentence suggests he has exactly one person in mind) who's very fundamentalist and often reminds everyone here of that. But who exactly is he referring to? Beats me.
-
TIL how muscles contract. Best I can tell is that it's a sophisticated sequence of sorcery.
Being serious, the magic words are "crossbridge cycling".
-
@kazitor said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
TIL how muscles contract. Best I can tell is that it's a sophisticated sequence of sorcery.
Being serious, the magic words are "crossbridge cycling".
Almost sniped into seeing how these descriptions correlate or reconcile with observations from semiserious weightlifting, but pulled out in time.
-
@Zecc said in TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML):
TIL my father once picked up a black mamba with his bare hands.
"Because I didn't know what it was at the time".My grandfather once cut the tendons in his forearm with a radial arm saw by accident, walked to the hospital and had them sewn back together, and the muscles hadn't even contracted so the tendon ends were right there.
"Because he was incredibly drunk at the time".
-
@Gribnit I didn't know you're Russian. Now it all makes sense! It's not mercury - just methanol!