I’m UK based so not hugely familiar with US mushrooms, but I seem to recall a spore print being useful for checking for false parasol? Though it’s not the most obvious (e.g. snakeskin markings for distinguishing from parasol).
Btw I totally agree with your general point (I never use them, except to produce pretty spore prints for friends).
Scarletina bolete apparently tastes relatively decent. I haven’t tried it myself though.
Yah – and to add certain edible mushrooms or families of mushrooms are very distinctive (e.g. hedgehog fungi in the UK), and I would recommend novices start out with. Others I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole even if I was relatively confident with an id, purely because it isn’t worth the risk (e.g. miller Vs fools funnel).
FUCKING DOING OUR JOB AS TRANSPORT MODELLERS AND DOING A FUCKING COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO GET FUCKING MODE SHIFT FROM RURAL USERS UNLESS YOU RUN A FUCKING METRO STYLE 10 MINUTELY SERVICE WHICH IS FUCKING UNFEASIBLE WITH THE FUCKING RESOURCES WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
IN THE FUCKING UK WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF FUCKING ABANDONED RAILWAYS FROM THE PERIOD OF FUCKING COAL MINING THAT WOULDN’T HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE FUCKING DEMAND NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY SETTING UP AN EXPENSIVE AS FUCK SIGNALLING SYSTEM TO BRING THEM UP TO MODERN FUCKING SAFETY STANDARDS, ALONGSIDE REPLACING THE FUCKING RAILS, SLEEPERS AND BEDS.
IF INSTEAD YOU CAN HAVE A FUCKING PUBLICALLY OWNED FLEET OF FUCKING ELECTRIC ‘MINI TRAINS’ THAT PEOPLE COULD USE FOR INFREQUENT BUT NECESSARY TRIPS, THAT COULD REMOVE A FUCKING SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO MODE SHIFT, WHICH WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING RAD
Carpenter bees are mostly solitary.
do you think the responder is serious. do you.
I just find it really funny that they’re named after the place Portishead, which isn’t really much to look at as small towns go, and yet they’ve achieved international success.
The incongruity is amusing to me for some reason.
Used to play a game called crab football when I was a kid.
My personal view is that you should always be wary of people asserting “this is how it is”. We’re in a science sub; we know that the purpose of a hypothesis is to rigorously attempt to disprove it and find counterexamples.
To discuss an area that I know some specifics about and can be more confident on: the historiography of the French revolution. Starting with George’s Lefebvre, the Marxist historians had a clear idea of what the revolution represented: a movement from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist, and so while their work is incredibly important and academically worth studying, they also tend to go into their work with a clear idea of what they wanted to find. So when the revisionists (starting with Cobban) come along, they find a lot of inconsistencies; the facts of the period don’t directly align with what the Marxist narratives wanted it to be (e.g. Cobban’s disagreement is that he thinks the feudal mode was near extinct by the time of the Revolution, and that it was more a political conflict than social).
Bringing it back to your question: I disagree with the narrative I put because I think reductive narratives aren’t helpful, and cause us to miss a lot of nuance. The nuclear family was dominant in England from the 13th Century onwards, but to leave it there misses a host of interesting social structures and changes (e.g. the role of the church and monasteries as social institutions that exist wholly separate from the family). Moreover, I don’t think it’s helpful to use the past as a suggestion for how we should build our future. The ‘return to tradition’ that’s suggested often has an idealised view of the past that misses all this nuance. The narrative around ‘ancient greek masculinity’, for instance, conveniently misses off their ideas around pederasty, which we perceive as abhorrent today.
As for reading, Foucault on how we like to categorise everything is quite interesting. If reading isn’t your cup of tea, the Thinking Allowed podcast from the BBC has an episode on Foucault that covers him that’s worth listening to.
It’s a very interesting article. I broadly think its argument is sensible, but there’s a couple of places I’d offer some dissent:
I think the idea of greater socialisation of child raising is framed as avoiding turning back the clock to a time when the nuclear family was stronger. I’d disagree with this framing of the suggestion; in many ways this is a return to tradition. Capitalism and the autonomy it represents has led to a loss of the kinds of community the author is describing. It has allowed the destruction of the ‘village’ in the idiom ‘it takes a village to raise a child’. There is now enough wealth for parents to leave the extended family and the local community to form their own, isolated nuclear family, which I personally think can be damaging for children’s socialisation.
I think the author makes a good point about ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ as identies having the space to exist as subcultures with the greater autonomy afforded under capitalism, but I would take issue with the suggestion that queer identities are only able to exist as a result of capitalism. There are numerous examples of historical transgender and homosexual identities, not just behaviours (e.g. two-spirit people in Native American culture).
Overall I think it’s an interesting narrative and a good point about the distinction between homosexual behaviour and desires, and queer identity.
Thanks – I’m familiar with some of Engels’ analysis on it, but will have a look at this. Seems interesting!
This is patently absurd. For one thing, the nuclear family itself is not currently what the vast majority of the population wants; if you look at the global population, both now and historically, the extended family is dominant. I might as well argue that children abandoning their parents and home is an unnatural construct, that’s replacing the ‘tribal’ way of living that was natural for humans for millennia. I could further argue that (since the nuclear family only became the most common type in the US in the 1960s and 70s), it was done in corporate interests to sell more cars and suburban houses, and that it is in fact YOU that is slobbering all over corporate cock.
But I wouldn’t make that argument, because it’s reductive and, frankly, a bit silly to let a narrative take the place of actually reading some sociological studies.
You don’t have to, but it seems perfectly easy since you don’t have to write anything down to solve it. c*sin(arctan(b/a)) gives b, and c*cos(arctan(b/a)) gives a. I’m not disputing that you can do it without, but I don’t think it’s necessarily any quicker or easier.
Ratios can be used in trig – if it’s 1.5 times as long as it is tall, tan(\theta) = \frac{2}{3}, which then allows you to find the lengths of the other two sides easily so long as you have a calculator.
One way is to do a little digging – you’ll often be able to find the insect it’s growing out of :)
You can eat fly agaric, but you have to boil it, change the water, and repeat a couple of times. The egg could be meant to represent a puffball, young stinkhorn (either of which people do eat) or an amanita still in the volva (v dangerous!). Tree nose looks like birch polypore. Purple could be based on amethyst deceiver. NSFW is stinkhorn. Deeply disconcerting is likely mealy tooth, though iirc there may be another one that looks similar. Citadel is possibly one of the yellow coral fungi (there’s a lot).
Actually if you live in the UK, one of the main id features of the liberty cap (the most common of the psychedelic mushrooms) is the umbo.
Ah, that’s rough. Acquire a nose-for-hire through mushroom based bribery? But yeah, a pain not to be able to tell them apart :/
What about the comic made you think it was implying that?