Stan Kelly is a fictitious cartoonist that has what can only be described as conservative boomer ass tendencies, and is published as if he writes for an audience of conservative American boomers with strong cultural and political opinions without even the slightest bit of media literacy.
So every symbol or allegory has to be spelled out in a painstakingly obvious way. He has several recurring characters: a crying statue of liberty, horrified at whatever is being depicted, and the opposite, someone who enjoys the depravity and needs to be labeled with the word "sickos" on his sweater, usually saying something like "yes, haha, YES!"
The joke is that it satirizes the type of political cartoons that sometimes become popular among the right wing (see Ben Garrison). More recently, the satire has often been focused on trivial, petty grievances being made out to be much more than they really should be. This particular comic is an example: that boomers hate being reminded that they don't even have a monopoly on nostalgia, and that it's been a long enough time since they were being cut out of the cultural zeitgeist that people are now nostalgic for things that they were too old to understand the first time around.
Stan Kelly is the creation of cartoonist Ben Ward, whose comics in his own name generally poke fun at conservatives more directly.
We already do this, even when the original reference is forgotten.
We use idioms that refer to Greek mythology (hanging over your head, as with the Sword or Damocles, or Achilles heel), or Bible stories (Judas meaning betrayal, shibboleth meaning some kind of identifier of membership in a group), or Shakespeare (pound of flesh), or horse racing (frontrunner, hands down, across the board) or other sports (bullseye, slam dunk, par).
And in terms of our technology, we use all sorts of things that harken back to some obsolete technology. We use a save icon that is a floppy disk, a database icon that uses cylinder drum memory. We refer to the smartphone interface that enters phone numbers as a "dialer" from the "dial" in the days of rotary phones.
No, the writing and direction is primarily done by Trey Parker. After his "written by" credits for 325 episodes, and Matt Stone's "written by" credits for 28 episodes, the next up are David R. Goodman for 9 episodes and Nancy Pimental for 7 episodes.
For directing, Trey Parker has credit for 311 episodes, with Eric Stough directing 15 (all before 2002) and Matt Stone directing 9.
The creative process most certainly uses a team effort, but there are two voices doing almost all of the story structure, and that's a natural bottleneck in the process. If you've seen 6 Days to Air, you can see that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are very much involved.
You don't think that it is strange that nearly after 30 years of making episodes suddenly they can't make it on time?
I don't think it's strange at all. They're 30 years older than they were 30 years ago. "Six Days to Air" was 14 years ago, and they were pulling all nighters. They have families and lots of other projects, so it's pretty reasonable to not want to live and work like that anymore.
The economy is complicated, people create models to try and describe it, they aren't perfect and don't work for all cases. That doesn't make it a fake science.
Note that this statement also generally describes models for meteorology, medicine, aerodynamics, and cosmology. Lots and lots of science is done through statistical analysis and modeling.
It's interesting because it's very obvious, biologically, that the panda has a digestive system that has a carnivore past, and yet, the very plentiful biomass in bamboo forests just waiting to be eaten rewards the animals that can make use of it. So the giant panda may or may not be "optimized" for meat, but has generations that came out of the free food that is bamboo, so that their very survival depends on a herbivore diet.
Actually I was off by a factor of 1000. That Camry needs to be raised to 7.3 km. Or you need 1000 of them. Or some combination of increased weight and height.
Sorry whoops I was off by a factor of 1000 because I used grams instead of kilograms. The Camry needs to be raised 7.3 km. Or you need 1000 of them in one house.
is it really easier and cheaper to store the energy needed for a home in a chemical battery?
Yes. A 5kwh battery is about 50kg and smaller than a carry-on suitcase. String 6 of them together and you've got 30 kWh stored with no moving parts. Anker has that for about $15,000, maybe $30k installed.
How much does a 3-story elevator cost? What about one that can capture the stored potential energy on the way down, and not break down?
This data analysis seems to suggest that yes, July through October have higher birth rates in the United States, with maybe 10% higher births than similar days between April and June.
Potential energy (in joules) is mass (in g) times height (in meters) times 9.8 m/s^2 .
So in order to store the 30 kWh per day that the typical American house uses, you'd need to convert the 30 kWh into 108,000,000 joules, and divide by 9.8, to determine how you'd want to store that energy. You'd need the height times mass to be about 11 million. So do you take a 1500 kg weight (about the weight of a Toyota Camry) and raise it about 7.3 meters (about 2 stories in a typical residential home)? (this is wrong, it's only 0.001 as much as the energy needed, see edit below)
And if that's only one day's worth of energy, how would you store a month's worth? Or the 3800kwh (13.68 x 10^9 joules) discussed in the article?
At that point, we're talking about raising 10 Camrys 93 meters into the air, just for one household. Without accounting for the lost energy and inefficiencies in the charging/discharging cycle.
Chemical energy is way easier to store.
Edit: whoops I was off by using grams instead of kg. It actually needs to be 1000 times the weight or 1000 the height. The two story Camry is around a tablet battery's worth of storage, not very much at all.
Even if I didn't make that at my normal job, or it was non-business hours when I can't just go to work for money, I feel like $40 in 3 hours is pretty doable with just gig work (grocery/restaurant delivery, Uber).
I see a lot of objectionable behavior out in public. A lot of it is from children. But most of it is not. If I'm thinking through my 10 worst flight experiences, or subway experiences, or coffee shop experiences, none of them involve children. Children are mostly a mild annoyance (and I say this as someone who mostly doesn't like other people's kids), but mostly harmless.
So the reaction of singling out the children for immediate correction, through physical force and violence, seems to be selectively targeted, and makes me suspect it's just people who just don't like children. Unless these same people say that a person holding up the line, playing music too loud on the subway, getting too close in your personal space, throwing trash on the ground, catcalling women, using slurs in public, etc., all deserve to be beaten, too.
And for people in the thread who are saying stuff like "oh yeah you shouldn't beat your kids, but you should keep those children out of public places," it also calls to mind the way some people talk about the homeless or the disabled, like they're ruining your good time by simply existing within your vicinity.
We're all just trying to coexist. Being in public, in a place open and accessible to everyone else, is inherently going to involve compromise, where we're not able to exclude others (the deal that comes with them not being able to exclude you). You can't let other people aggravate you enough to, like, post a TikTok about it (which I also consider to be objectionable behavior).
The whole first season is the Michelin chef coming home to deal with family and grief, and taking over his brother's Italian Beef joint after his brother's suicide. In the first season, the fine dining stuff is all flashbacks, while they deal with the aftermath of creditors and other unresolved issues in the type of restaurant that sells more than half of its food through a walk up window.
In the later seasons, he tries to execute on his vision of a fine dining restaurant he can call his own, but much of the fine dining content is still told in flashbacks.
It's a lot of things, but pretentious isn't a word I'd use to describe it.
Ok ok, I get that it can be a lot to dive into.
Stan Kelly is a fictitious cartoonist that has what can only be described as conservative boomer ass tendencies, and is published as if he writes for an audience of conservative American boomers with strong cultural and political opinions without even the slightest bit of media literacy.
So every symbol or allegory has to be spelled out in a painstakingly obvious way. He has several recurring characters: a crying statue of liberty, horrified at whatever is being depicted, and the opposite, someone who enjoys the depravity and needs to be labeled with the word "sickos" on his sweater, usually saying something like "yes, haha, YES!"
The joke is that it satirizes the type of political cartoons that sometimes become popular among the right wing (see Ben Garrison). More recently, the satire has often been focused on trivial, petty grievances being made out to be much more than they really should be. This particular comic is an example: that boomers hate being reminded that they don't even have a monopoly on nostalgia, and that it's been a long enough time since they were being cut out of the cultural zeitgeist that people are now nostalgic for things that they were too old to understand the first time around.
Stan Kelly is the creation of cartoonist Ben Ward, whose comics in his own name generally poke fun at conservatives more directly.