c4countdown

Why does music sometimes sound distinctly higher and faster than you remember it being? Gotta be a tiredness thing, right?

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:50 am Why does music sometimes sound distinctly higher and faster than you remember it being? Gotta be a tiredness thing, right?

Your brain has slowed down? Could be a thing if you're tired especially if it later appears normal when you're not tired.

Dance mix?

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:50 am Why does music sometimes sound distinctly higher and faster than you remember it being? Gotta be a tiredness thing, right?

Wouldn't surprise me if some commercial stations speed up some songs, or, like Corby says, dance mix.

Nah, this is me at home in bed, on my laptop, putting on a song I've heard a million times from the same place I always put it on, and it's just faster this time. Surely others have experienced this? Not necessarily in my bed, but at some point in their lives?

I know the national anthem gets slower every time I hear it.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:01 am Nah, this is me at home in bed, on my laptop, putting on a song I've heard a million times from the same place I always put it on, and it's just faster this time. Surely others have experienced this? Not necessarily in my bed, but at some point in their lives?

I've got a very good ear for music I know well, from being able to spot obvious differences like 7" edits, to re-recordings, or that most egregious of things, the song played at slightly the wrong speed, which I've heard done by deejays and crap radio stations. It's blimmin grating, but it's not something I notice happening at random.

Or you sure you've not accidentally hit the x1.1 button or something? Might only be something you get on Virtual DJ or whatever.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:01 am Nah, this is me at home in bed, on my laptop, putting on a song I've heard a million times from the same place I always put it on, and it's just faster this time. Surely others have experienced this? Not necessarily in my bed, but at some point in their lives?

Try playing the song on another device as it could be your laptop or software/app

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:05 am I know the national anthem gets slower every time I hear it.

Maybe it is tied to the monarch's heartbeat and so will speed up when Charles comes along?

I thought I might have posted about this before but I couldn't find it - why do we have two lots of two-minute silences for the end of the First World War? We have Armistice Day and Remembrance Day (today - 11th November) and Remembrance Sunday (always the second Sunday in November which is also the Sunday closest to the 11th). Although I think they also make up some extra thing for when 11th November happens to fall on a Sunday. To confuse things further, Wikipedia says of Remembrance Day "Not to be confused with Remembrance Sunday or Armistice Day". I am confusing it with Armistice Day because you're not telling me the difference. Furthermore, no-one ever mentions this or talks about how weird it is. It is in fact incredibly weird. I don't think any of you fully grasp just how weird it is. Especially since we now have three days, two of which happen simultaneously.

Well it seems that Armistice Day is specifically about WWI and Remembrance Sunday is about both World Wars and later wars as well. And "Remembrance Day is observed on 11 November to recall the end of First World War hostilities". So seemingly the same as Armistice Day. Although maybe when 11th November is on a Sunday, the weird extra day is Remembrance Day. I don't know though. Just speculating.

There is a Sun article that asks "Are Armistice Day, Remembrance Day and Remembrance Sunday the same thing?" But it doesn't really get to the nub of it and I wonder if it's confusing Remembrance Day/Sunday:

Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday are not the same thing.

However, Armistice Day is also referred to as Remembrance Day - which can be confusing.

Armistice Day is always on November 11 and was initially used to pay respects to the fallen.

Yet, Remembrance Day was adopted during World War 2 by many nations as a way to pay tribute to those from both conflicts.

Anyway, if anything, I've come away from this more confused than when I went in. Even if one of the days is just for WWI and one is for multiple different wars, it's still incredibly weird that they have them at basically the same time. And since no-one ever talks about this and explains anything, I can imagine that there are millions of people wondering why we do the same thing twice.

Apropos to nothing in particular, a young ( 20ish) worker at Waitrose, yesterday, thought the 2 minutes silence was for 9/11

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 4:31 am Apropos to nothing in particular, a young ( 20ish) worker at Waitrose, yesterday, thought the 2 minutes silence was for 9/11

It's easy to forget that 9/11 there isn't the 9th of November, but September 11th

There is a 'thing' called six degrees of Kevin Bacon whereby you can determine that every actor is no more than six people away from Kevin Bacon from the films they have made.
I was wondering if there is an optimum number of degrees for one person to be known to anyone on the planet

The problem is that nobody who knows Frank Mulvey has ever known anyone else.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:36 pm There is a 'thing' called six degrees of Kevin Bacon whereby you can determine that every actor is no more than six people away from Kevin Bacon from the films they have made.
I was wondering if there is an optimum number of degrees for one person to be known to anyone on the planet

I believe a group of scientists in Wuhan were discussing something very similar about a year ago, and wondered if it would be possible to test it empirically.

A couple of top notch replies there.

Why would anyone voluntarily buy one of those hairless cats?

Allergies?

You can get proper hypoallergenic proper cats.

Is it normal to nearly cry(as in your eyes start welling up) cause you think a song is almost as perfect as it can be

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:50 pm Why would anyone voluntarily buy one of those hairless cats?

Why a cat?
Do you even ' own' ' a cat if you've got one.
NB. I'm bored with lockdown and I am reducing myself to trolling cat owners

James Nguyen wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:54 am Is it normal to nearly cry(as in your eyes start welling up) cause you think a song is almost as perfect as it can be

Name that tune
If it evokes a memory, then yes it's normal.
Max Richter can do this to me with On The Nature of Daylight

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:42 pm You can get proper hypoallergenic proper cats.

What do they make them from?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:46 pm

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:42 pm You can get proper hypoallergenic proper cats.

What do they make them from?

What if you scotchgard it

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:12 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:46 pm

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:42 pm You can get proper hypoallergenic proper cats.

What do they make them from?

What if you scotchgard it

What, like glue it to a wall?

Why is Manchester United's pitch in Old Trafford on that raised mound? I'm always amazed it doesn't cause more injuries when there's tussles at the side of the pitch. Anyone know if there's a reason for it? Drainage maybe?

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:14 pm Why is Manchester United's pitch in Old Trafford on that raised mound? I'm always amazed it doesn't cause more injuries when there's tussles at the side of the pitch. Anyone know if there's a reason for it? Drainage maybe?

I dont know how true it is but someone on Quora said its because of European advertising hoardings being too big and to combat this United raised the pitch.
I would have sent you the link but as i can barely type correctly I didn't bother

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:14 pm Why is Manchester United's pitch in Old Trafford on that raised mound? I'm always amazed it doesn't cause more injuries when there's tussles at the side of the pitch. Anyone know if there's a reason for it? Drainage maybe?

No idea, but the Aussie rugby league players complained about it last time they played there.

Why wasn't Beethoven (the dog in the film) instead called Bach? Would have been cleverer.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 pm Why wasn't Beethoven (the dog in the film) instead called Bach? Would have been cleverer.

I know someone who called their dog Achilles.

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:04 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 pm Why wasn't Beethoven (the dog in the film) instead called Bach? Would have been cleverer.

I know someone who called their dog Achilles.

I caalled my dog Five Miles
So when my fitness coach asked i told him I've walked Five Miles today

When they discover a new species of animal is there someone who's job it is to lick it just in case? It worked that one time with the frogs.

Bagsy not it.

Coffee beans that have been digested by a civet being a thing.
Who found that out?

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:06 am When they discover a new species of animal is there someone who's job it is to lick it just in case? It worked that one time with the frogs.

Did David Attenborough's Life in Colour where he talked about poison frogs make you think of this?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:52 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:06 am When they discover a new species of animal is there someone who's job it is to lick it just in case? It worked that one time with the frogs.

Did David Attenborough's Life in Colour where he talked about poison frogs make you think of this?

No. It was a combination of a tweet about testing mushrooms which made me think of hallucinogens and an article about a movie director talking about the scene from Ace Ventura 2 where Jim Carey is "birthed" from the rhinoceros. It made me wonder that maybe rhinos are hallucinogenic too but nobody has tried to lick one. Then I thought maybe someone has and sort of extended it to all animals.

Are school reunions actually a thing or do they only exist in movies and TV shows? Is it more of an American thing? Does anyone know anyone who's ever gone to one? If you have gone to one how many years was it between leaving school and the reunion?

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:55 am Are school reunions actually a thing or do they only exist in movies and TV shows? Is it more of an American thing? Does anyone know anyone who's ever gone to one? If you have gone to one how many years was it between leaving school and the reunion?

There was a reunion for my school about seven years after I left. I did not go though.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:55 am Are school reunions actually a thing or do they only exist in movies and TV shows? Is it more of an American thing? Does anyone know anyone who's ever gone to one? If you have gone to one how many years was it between leaving school and the reunion?

I've been to a couple; there are events every few years. Maybe a posh school thing?

Nothing much exciting happened, there was a mock assembly, the school song was sung (before my time), and then we mooched around the place (it still has the same smells), chatted to some of the old teachers, then buggered off to the pub.

Yeah , I got invited to a school reunion.
I was aprehensive about meeting Colin again.
He always used to beat me.
He won the Spelling Bee where i came second, The end o f year Maths test,, beat me into second there too also beat me at getting the lead roll in Drama.
At the reunion, I found out that Colin had died of cancer.
I win that one

There was one just a few years after I left. Went along with a mate - everyone else was really old - at least 40! - so we buggered off after about five minutes. Actually googling tells me that the "old girls' association" was set up in 1987 which was three years after I left, so it must have been pretty new - it seems they do an regular reunions, quiz nights and history days. I have no desire to attend Although the school does have an interesting history - it was a fort, then a hospital in the Crimean War, with Florence Nightingale housing a medical school there - I do remember going on a nocturnal ghost hunt shortly after we left and scaring ourselves stupid!

It's widely accepted that consuming 3,500 more/fewer calories = 1lb of fat gain/loss

1lb = 453.92 grams

100g of lard = 898 calories, so 1lb of lard = 4076 calories.

So if I eat a pound of lard, I'll put on 1.16lb - how does that work then?

Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:03 am It's widely accepted that consuming 3,500 more/fewer calories = 1lb of fat gain/loss

1lb = 453.92 grams

100g of lard = 898 calories, so 1lb of lard = 4076 calories.

So if I eat a pound of lard, I'll put on 1.16lb - how does that work then?

I think the 3500 calories thing is a bit oversimplified, but even if we take it at face value, as far as I understand fat cells contain a lot of water. So you eat a pound of lard, but when this converts to fat cells in your body, it also uses some of the water you've consumed as well so the total extra weight you keep can be more than the weight of the lard.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:49 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:03 am It's widely accepted that consuming 3,500 more/fewer calories = 1lb of fat gain/loss

1lb = 453.92 grams

100g of lard = 898 calories, so 1lb of lard = 4076 calories.

So if I eat a pound of lard, I'll put on 1.16lb - how does that work then?

I think the 3500 calories thing is a bit oversimplified, but even if we take it at face value, as far as I understand fat cells contain a lot of water. So you eat a pound of lard, but when this converts to fat cells in your body, it also uses some of the water you've consumed as well so the total extra weight you keep can be more than the weight of the lard.

Yeah, I probably shouldn't eat the whole block then.

"...water, 95%, did you know that? 95% water, all of us, and yet they say there’s a shortage!"

Surely, if the male seahorse gives birth, it's not the male?

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:06 am Surely, if the male seahorse gives birth, it's not the male?

They don't "give birth" as such. They just hold on to the eggs until the hatchlings are ready to swim free, then release them. Like male penguins do.

So they hold onto the eggs while they gestate? Sounds pretty female to me, and despite having done no research of my own, my mind is made up.

They identify as male.

Presumably the female produces the eggs though?

Pretty much. Yeah the female makes the eggs; the male makes the sperm. That's what defines sex in biology: gamete production. They do a sort of medieval mating ritual where they entwine themselves together for a bit then the female pumps her eggs into the male's 'brood pouch'. The eggs mature in there until they're ready to be released, then the male lets them go.

The seahorse setup still reminds me more of penguins than anything else though, because they're mostly monogamous. I suppose it is different in that seahorse eggs get their nutrients from the male (via brood pouch) whereas penguin foetuses get theirs from the female (via the egg), although the male penguin has an external furry pouch thing for keeping the egg warm.

There are other fishes in the same family as seahorses that are much more of a sex-role reversal. Polyandry is quite common in some of them, where the females swim around impregnating loads of ho males like top shaggers.

I wonder if in the future 'biological sex' will be a term used in a similar way to ' birth mother' when describing the origins of say Eliot Page or Katlyn Jenner so as not to offend

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:25 am I wonder if in the future 'biological sex' will be a term used in a similar way to ' birth mother' when describing the origins of say Eliot Page or Katlyn Jenner so as not to offend

What does that even mean? Is "biological sex" not already a term? Can you give an example of how you would use the term in this hypothetical future?

Like, you can have the sentence, "x is my birth mother".

What's an equivalent sentence using the term biological sex that you are imagining?

Mark James wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:19 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:25 am I wonder if in the future 'biological sex' will be a term used in a similar way to ' birth mother' when describing the origins of say Eliot Page or Katlyn Jenner so as not to offend

What does that even mean? Is "biological sex" not already a term? Can you give an example of how you would use the term in this hypothetical future?

Like, you can have the sentence, "x is my birth mother".

What's an equivalent sentence using the term biological sex that you are imagining?

I think using in reference to somebody who identifies as a different gender than the one they were born with.
Im sure its offensive to say Elliot Page formally a woman, regardless of the correctness of the discription

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:19 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:19 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:25 am I wonder if in the future 'biological sex' will be a term used in a similar way to ' birth mother' when describing the origins of say Eliot Page or Katlyn Jenner so as not to offend

What does that even mean? Is "biological sex" not already a term? Can you give an example of how you would use the term in this hypothetical future?

Like, you can have the sentence, "x is my birth mother".

What's an equivalent sentence using the term biological sex that you are imagining?

I think using in reference to somebody who identifies as a different gender than the one they were born with.
Im sure its offensive to say Elliot Page formally a woman, regardless of the correctness of the discription

I still don't see where 'biological sex' fits here. Surely 'trans man' does the job pretty well.

Nah Trans man is ambiguous

I'm sure that those involved in medical care have training about what the appropriate language/questions are.

For the rest of us, it's pretty simple. We refer to someone as how they identify - no need to get hung up about genitalia.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:45 pm I'm sure that those involved in medical care have training about what the appropriate language/questions are.

For the rest of us, it's pretty simple. We refer to someone as how they identify - no need to get hung up about genitalia.

One of the things that JK Rowling got into trouble for was referring to herself as a biological woman, so the rules of the game aren't as simple as referring to someone as how they identify.

I know this has been discussed at length before on this forum, but I think to publicly refer to someone as he/she against their wishes is the wrong thing to do just out of politeness if nothing else. But the wider discussion/debate of what things about themselves people get to choose and what they don't is a legitimate one to have.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:25 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:45 pm I'm sure that those involved in medical care have training about what the appropriate language/questions are.

For the rest of us, it's pretty simple. We refer to someone as how they identify - no need to get hung up about genitalia.

One of the things that JK Rowling got into trouble for was referring to herself as a biological woman, so the rules of the game aren't as simple as referring to someone as how they identify.

I know this has been discussed at length before on this forum, but I think to publicly refer to someone as he/she against their wishes is the wrong thing to do just out of politeness if nothing else. But the wider discussion/debate of what things about themselves people get to choose and what they don't is a legitimate one to have.

I think J K was referring to herself as someone who menstruates.
I didnt hear much criticism from post menopausal women though.
The only point i was crappily trying to make is that the rare trans men and women who have been famous identifying as a previous gender dont like ( or their fans dont like) their previous careers being discussed on a gender basis.
So i thought biological or birth gender would be accurate without being offensive

She did also refer to herself as a biological woman at one point in the ensuing debate, I'm pretty sure.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:19 pm She did also refer to herself as a biological woman at one point in the ensuing debate, I'm pretty sure.

Probably, i didnt read everything that was said as i thought the twittersphere over reacted , tautology in action there., and i generally lose interest