So, I was going to do that math but it’s 65 fucking countries and I’m bored but I ain’t got that much battery left on my phone.
At one time Britain ruled over 1 out of every 5 people on the planet. If we carry that forward to today it’s roughly 1.6 billion people. Let’s call that the lower bound.
If we take the average population of any given country, which is fair given that China wasn’t but India was one of them, and divide that by the number of countries and then multiply it by the number Britain used to rule, we get 2.6 billion.
Let’s call that the upper bound.
There are roughly 2.6 billion christians worldwide. But not all of them celebrate Christmas. In the US, 85%-95% do. Let’s just use that for the upper bound and say 2.2 to 2.5 billion people celebrate Christmas worldwide. Let’s say 50% is the lower bound, at 1.3 billion people.
Which means that it’s possible, and not even unlikely that more people celebrate independence from Britain than celebrate Christmas.
Do you mean could there be a better infographic posted? With more info about decolonization?
I have some resources there, people are competing to make the flashiest infographics about it now which is nice. Extremely fringe benefit of YouTube and TikTok.
Or did you mean poorer countries celebrating a new kind of independence day once they stop relying on Washington or get rid of military bases from Euros?
Because I hope the Sahel states will celebrate their alliance with by establishing a new holiday if they haven’t already. For getting rid of the damn French.
There are various ways of oppression occurring everywhere and all around the world. Like embargos, e-waste, textile waste etc. so yes to what you mentioned. But this is an amazing share. A bit blurry to read.
Yes! I remember this happening a lot, and I could never really truly understand the thought process behind it! But the thing is, this is still happening today, just in different context, and it’s still equally as baffling!
I don’t remember what it did though. I think it wasn’t the browser, and I have a vague memory it wasn’t for dial up either, but my memory’s shit so I personally wouldn’t trust me on that
Edit: had to look this up, it was IE. I think I didn’t remember it because I never really used IE since I started off with NCSA Mosaic and then Netscape
It was Internet Explorer. But, what was probably confusing about it was that anything that required Internet access would start up the program that dialed the modem and connected to the Internet. So, clicking on the icon would eventually launch the browser, but first it would launch the dial-up program, which would take about 30s to connect.
As an aside, it really grates to see how Microsoft called their browser “The Internet”. And that’s the least dastardly thing they did that let them use their monopoly on operating systems to destroy Netscape.
I’m a user experience designer. My favourite story is from aviation engineering. I don’t remember the year or all the details, but the US Navy had put stupid amounts of money and time into engineering a new fighter jet. It was worked out on paper and built to exact specifications. Then, during the first human test of it, the pilot ejected on the tarmac before it took off. The plane crashed, obviously, but the pilot couldn’t explain what happened (apparently he had a concussion from his unscheduled landing).
The plane was built again, and shortly after takeoff, the pilot again ejected without explanation.
What the fuck was going on?
In the retelling I heard, someone finally noticed the design of the cockpit was to blame. In trying to cram all the standard controls plus new ones into the smallest amount of space, the designers had moved the eject lever right next to the lever to adjust the seat position – they’d coloured the eject lever red, but the pilot couldn’t see that since it was below and slightly to the right of his ass, and both levers were the same size and shape. Nobody noticed this was a problem until at least two pilots accidentally ejected on takeoff.
This might be apocryphal, I don’t know, but I learnt it as an example of how things might look good on paper, but you can’t really know until a user fucks everything up.
Id hardly call that a user fucking things up, that’s not even good on paper. Those are a retarded pair of things to have next to one another regardless of any coloring on them. Especially with the same handles
I’m not a fighter pilot, but when I think “ejection”, can’t imagine anything but a high-stress situation where the pilot doesn’t have time to figure out which is the ejection lever. Imagine a real emergency where the pilot grabs the wrong lever, gently slides back with the seat, and then fucking dies on impact.
My favourite story about aircraft design about some of the design mistakes on the F-16 fighter.
The F-16 was the first fly-by-wire fighter. They didn’t have much experience with it, and tried out some new things. One was that instead of having a stick between the legs of the pilot they used a side stick. And, since everything was fly-by-wire they didn’t need the stick to mechanically move. They decided they’d just use a solid stick with pressure transducers, since it was simpler and more reliable than a stick that moved.
The trouble was that the pilots couldn’t estimate how much pressure they were using. This led to the pilots over-rotating on take-off (pulling back too hard). Even funnier was that at early airshows, when the pilots were doing a high-speed roll, you could see the control surfaces twitching with the heartbeat of the pilots as they shoved the stick as hard as they could to get maximum roll.
That led to them adding a small amount of give to the stick, essentially giving the pilots feedback on how hard they were pushing the control surfaces.
Another more subtle issue with the design was that originally the stick was set up for forward, back, left and right aligned with the axes of the plane itself. But, they discovered that when pilots pulled back on the stick, they were pulling slightly towards themselves, causing the plane to also roll. So, they realigned it so that “pulling back” is slightly pulling towards the pilot’s body, rather than directly along the forward / backward axis of the plane.
lemmy.ml
Active