I think they’re saying this:

Family meals would comprise of three restaurants worth of people since they’re all immortal

Separately, you can never retire since you will never hit retirement age

Not going to lie to you, this is exactly what i did :)

It’s from God emperor of dune, i think it’s the fourth book in the series by publication, but not chronologically.

I guess this might be a spoiler if they eventually make it a movie, but basically, the son of Paul merges himself with a sand worm and becomes effectively immortal. It’s both interesting and bizarre.

There’s a lot more to it than that but i don’t want to ruin the story for anyone

Looks like a Milchkaffee, which is kinda like a cafe au lait

I think they’re referencing the manga/anime death note. So they’re just writing in the names of countries hoping they will die.

Did a light google search, looks like the individual is the former prime minister of poland (between ww1 and ww2), and a fairly prominent statesman, who I’m guessing hated those other countries.

Yeah true, maybe one day!

Living in the USA, my experience looking into this was similar. However, there are some doctoral programs in europe that are free even for international students, which is actually quite tempting.

I don’t think it’s fair to assume, at best, an accident is negligence. There are numerous things that can lead to an accident that wouldn’t be negligence, such as normal wear and tear causing problems with something such as brakes or steering (perhaps not caught during routine maintenance as they weren’t issues at the time), something falling into the road (weather related, wildlife, erosion), a glitch of some kind (two green lights, not negligence necessarily) , or visibility issues (even cautious and solid drivers can be at risk during poor conditions). These are just some examples, but in the cases nobody involved would be at fault.

I believe the comparison to a gun is woefully inaccurate and invalid. Both are machines with the capacity to cause harm, but the similarities end there.

I can totally understand, and that makes a lot of sense. I think the sheer volume of accidents in the post are what’s so shocking. I’ve only been in a vehicle with an obviously reckless driver two times (so far. And to clarify, two people, once each), and from my perspective, some people really shouldn’t drive. Heck, one of those two times was supposed to be a casual date (she was picking me up, we were in college), and i asked her to drop me off immediately. Big nope.

That’s why i added not high volume times, so what i meant was regarding specifically driving when you aren’t stuck in traffic. I’m suggesting that the act of driving itself isn’t normally a horrific experience, though yes, sitting in traffic is awful.

Edited for some clarity

I can agree with some of your response to what was said by the other commenter, but my impression is that person was shocked that someone at a young age has been involved in double digit accidents that mostly sound like their fault. Some people really just are incapable of driving, though that shouldn’t diminish that small lapses or true accidents do happen.

I would disagree that driving in general is miserable, though I’m sure this can vary by location. While i would prefer better access to efficient public transit (live in the USA), being able to get in a car and go anywhere is pretty freeing, provided it isn’t during high volume times, especially on a freeway.

There are plenty of insurance companies that are like this. They’re significantly cheaper than the nationally advertised insurance options.

This is how I’ve always understood it as well. The two spellings are homophones so it’s a pretty easy mistake to make.

I disagree, “should’ve” and “should of” sound virtually identical when spoken (at least in some regions, can’t speak for all pronunciations). I can imagine why a non english native speaker would have trouble with this, though I’m not disagreeing with it being a common issue amongst native speakers as well.

The link i provided has that as well, and it says that Rawlinson created the short kilt in Inverness, Scotland, with the help of local highlanders. Might have been a guy from Northwest England but he did it in Scotland with the Scots, and it’s an apparently dubious claim at that. The sources i provided also suggest that after the invention, the British army popularized the short kilt as opposed to the traditional long one, but it’s still of Scottish origin (not developed by the British army as the linked YouTube video suggests. Conflicting claims. I admittedly skimmed through the video to find the relevant part). Still interesting though.

“The design of the small kilt was adopted by the Highland regiment of the British Army, the military kilt then passed into civilian usage and has remained popular ever since”

This does, however, sound similar to claiming that Italy was the first non Scandinavian Western nation to find the new world because Christopher Columbus was from Italy, even though the whole excursion was wholly financed by, backed by, and launched from Spain.

There’s also dispute over the claim altogether from Scottish historians.

"Of course, many Scots dispute the notion that an Englishman invented the kilt. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that the kilt was in use before Rawlinson’s time. For example, the portrait of Kenneth Sutherland, 3rd Lord Duffus, appears to point to earlier use of the walking kilt. However, there are discrepancies concerning this theory among the Historiographical community, with some experts disagreeing as to the origins of the modern-day kilt.

Michael Fry, an eminent Scottish historian, debunked Lord Dacre’s claims about the kilt saying they ‘prove absolutely nothing’. Fry claims there is evidence that Tartan was worn in the Middle Ages—he also labelled Lord Dacre as ‘not a very reliable guide to Scottish history."

https://www.lochcarron.co.uk/our-journal/the-history-of-the-kilt/#:~:text=Originating in the traditional dress,cloth in a tartan pattern

I’m curious about this but not really able to find anything. The sources I’m finding online are saying that kilts are predominantly Scottish, they probably were adopted from Scotland by the Irish, they’re representative of Celtic identity (so also Welsh, Bretons, and Cornish), and can be found in other places, but not seeing much about an English kilt? Anytime I’m seeing Brits and kilts, they’re wearing highland kilts.

Apparently the word kilt is a Scots word (not to be confused with Scottish English) meaning to tuck clothes around the body.

https://www.lochcarron.co.uk/our-journal/the-history-of-the-kilt/#:~:text=Originating in the traditional dress,cloth in a tartan pattern.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilt

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-English-people-wear-kilts-My-English-granny-always-attended-formal-occasions-in-the-same-colored-patterned-kilt

The situation in the picture suggests the guy is romantically interested in the girl. Based on body language, the girl appears less interested. Based on this perception, somebody added the text in the post, which is written to sound like the girl is inviting the guy to go on a walk together. When the guy readily agrees to the arrangement, she surprisingly indicates that she is not actually going on the walk, but she was trying to find a way to ask him to leave without sounding impolite.

Checked it out, it’s pretty good but also reminds me of regular jazz, just with a bit more virtuoso mixed in as opposed to free play, so it’s less laidback. Interesting concept

I surprisingly had little issue with the GoW ragnarok valkyrie (i think 3 attempts?), solely because she had a similar kit to the valkyrie boss in GoW, and she took me far too long to beat (took me at least 6 hours).

I actually got some use out of that prior fight!

quietly turns around