ToumaKazusa1

The rest of the world has a lot of different names for us because they speak a lot of different languages. When speaking in English, however, "America" is a country, and "The Americas" are the continents.

When I was on swim team I think they just had showers we could rinse off in while still wearing swimsuits, so we would just do that and then change into normal clothes. There wasn't a need to take an actual shower since you weren't really sweating in the pool, you just wanted to get the pool water off of you. But I might be misremembering, I was only on swim team for one year before I switched to wrestling

Wrestling class would end early enough that we could shower, yes. Typically JV would practice in the morning and Varsity would practice after school, and the people who were taking Wrestling as their PE practice would get an additional practice during school hours. Not showering after wrestling practice was a health risk, since you were sweating and touching a bunch of other people all over. We had to mop the room every day and shower after each practice, because if we did not we would probably all get skin diseases. One girl did get hand-foot-mouth disease, and had to stop wrestling until she got better.

This was for a wrestling class that happened during school hours.

It was common where I lived in the 2010's, if you wanted to do sports you didn't have much of a choice. There were too many of us to shower separately and not showering after wrestling practice was a genuine health issue on top of the smell. I think the girls tended to have single showers and actually use them since there were fewer of them and they cared more, but the only guy I knew who used the private shower was gay and had previously walked into the normal shower room with a hardon.

This is what people say but the reality is every single country that's at least moderately wealthy has this same problem. If institung Scandanavian style welfare and worker protection laws would fix the problem, why hasn't it fixed the problem for Scandanavia?

Ghandi is famous from Civ if nothing else

There are a few possibilities with regards to population growth: First, we stop subsidizing old people. There's going to be too many of them relative to young people, so we make them pay for what they need, and if they can't afford it they die in poverty. This is politically impossible but it's theoretically an option. Second, we keep increasing taxes on younger people. This will work to a point, but you can only tax so much, and eventually the people with money to leave just leave. Unless you institute increasingly draconian laws to essentially enslave working age people for the benefit of the old, it doesn't work. Third, increase immigration. If there's not enough young people in the country just bring in young people from outside. This is a temporary solution because even in places like India the rate of population growth is dropping. Eventually you run out of people no matter how much immigration you allow. Still, in the short run it does work. Fourth, just invent robots to take care of old people. We don't need young people to take care of them if the robots do it for us. This might actually work but it's a long term solution, not something we can do now. Or fifth, just get people to have more kids. Requires no crazy increases of taxes, doesn't result in old people dying in poverty, and doesn't bet everything on fully automated luxury retirement homes. It's by far the best solution to a lot of different problems. It's also seemingly impossible to solve, it's happening in China, Japan, Norway, America, every single moderately wealthy country has this problem. Even taking away women's rights doesn't do much to change it, contrary to what some terminally online people suggest. Whatever solution you're thinking of has already been tried at least once and it's already failed. But that doesn't mean it's not a problem worth considering

Counting or not counting gang violence? (Mods pls is a joke)

Her body is the exact same as Rin's so criticizing it is criticizing Rin

Well "some of y'all come over here" makes sense. So if you want to clarify that you are talking to everyone, you can specifiy All (of? y'all

That's probably where the forever war is being fought

Most Americans don't do coke, and nobody converts 9mm bullets into 0.009km bullets. Dimes have nothing to do with metric, that's entirely unrelated

Switch Destruction for Restoration and add in shield. Restoration perks give you infinite stamina pretty quick and infinite stamina shield bash is a nice combo. You have no good ranged options but with infinite stamina you can just sprint over to them

The title has a double meaning. Either you're fighting for a just cause, or you're fighting just 'cause.

It's meant to be a double meaning. Which is fitting considering you can play the game seriously or you can mess around blowing stuff up for fun

The whole point of Just Cause is that you aren't trying to liberate anything. You're blowing stuff up just 'cause

Even the Sopranos were just a glorified crew

>no issues Look inside. There's issues

Does anyone get paid for making AI music? US courts have ruled that the output of generative AI can't be copyrighted, so anything you make can be legally stolen.

MAGA is reactionary and delusional but the two aren't necessarily the same thing. Them being reactionary just means they oppose pretty much everything that would be labeled as "social progress", equal rights for minorities, women, immigrants, regulations on business, etc. Their movement is a reaction to this change and they want to undo it and go back to the older order where they imagine things were better. On top of this they're entirely delusional and will ignore anything that contradicts Trump. But you could have reactionaries that are less delusional (they'd still need to be somewhat delusional to think that returning to the old order would help them in any way), and you can have delusional cults of personality that are not reactionary.

Japan at least it's pretty normal to just yell "SUMIMASEN" when you need something, so while you aren't going to have a waiter checking on you preemptively you also won't have much trouble getting their attention if you want it. I mean obviously you don't need to yell it all the time but in a busy restaurant you can say it as loud as is necessary to be heard.

Depends on how much slang they use. Also depends if you mean English people, because a strong Scottish accent will be much harder to understand. Peaky Blinders in particular I think would be pretty easy to understand, but something like the Pikeys in Snatch, not so much.

It's impossible for us to know, because those people might just be being polite, or they might have thought you were a native speaker until you told them otherwise, or somewhere in between.

It's definitely swung the other way where people try to distinguish themselves as not being neckbeards by talking about Japan like it's a dystopian hellhole, despite the fact that it's a very nice (if flawed) country.

Pearl City, probably. It's in Hawaii so good luck swimming out there to invade it, even if you ignore the massive naval base right next to it

Yes

> It’s not stupid, in Australia we don’t say “farther”, Just because you use the words incorrectly doesn't mean everyone else does. Australian English, British English, American English, its all the same. 'farther' relates specifically to distance. Which makes sense, it has 'far' in it, so its talking about how far away something is. Further is a more general word. Anything that's not literal distance gets compared with further. Its not that important and as you say the pronunciations are similar so people frequently get it wrong, in America and apparently Australia as well.

I don't know. I ate at an odd time because I was doing all my touristy stuff and had a schedule to keep, so it was pretty empty when I was there. I do know it is popular with the Americans stationed in Yokosuka, but I have no idea what the Japanese people living there think of it.

That does sound correct, I misunderstood you. I definitely agree with that sentiment, I can find good authentic Mexican food around me easier than I can find good tex mex.

I mean, Tex Mex isn't usually fancy food, its just normal stuff, so I wouldn't normally recommend someone from out of town go try some on purpose. It was just funny to find it in Japan.

It was in Yokosuka, near the Navy bases. I don't remember the exact location but also there can't be too much tex mex in Yokosuka. From Google I think it's called Mike's Tex Mex, I would give a link but on big subs like this automod tends to filter everything, so I'll let you search it. If you do go to Yokosuka, on top of the obvious stuff, I'd really recommend going to the little museum in Verny Park with the French flags on it. It doesn't look like much from the outside but it was super neat.

Funnily enough I went to a random Mexican restaurant when I was in Japan and it turned out to be a pretty solid tex mex place (I grew up in Texas). Apparently the guy who started it was a Texan who'd joined the military and been stationed in Japan, and when he got out he moved there and opened a restaurant. I went there expecting something strange but it was basically an average Mexican restaurant from DFW, just in Japan.

Not really. If you read a book about teenagers it'll be teenagers who are having sex. They have sex in real life so they have sex in books too.

In the age of sail flying a ship's flag upside down was a way to signal that the ship was in distress. As a profile picture today it probably means the person thinks the country is in distress.

What books do you read where characters never have sex? 1984, the culture series, Murakami, I mean there's no point in giving examples because it's so common. It doesn't exist in YA books, and now that I think of it I don't remember much in the old Russian books I've read.

Tbh books having weird sex stuff in them is pretty normal. I don't think it's particularly unique to Stephen King, this just gets brought up as an example because people who don't read a lot of books watched the movie IT.

Not everyone is a subject of the justification they are in. If I am a Japanese diplomat in America, I have diplomatic immunity, and am not subject to American laws. Diplomats regularly break laws related to parking, for example, because it is impossible for anyone to do anything about it. The other example is an invading army. Russian soldiers in occupied Ukraine are not subject to Ukrainian law. They're still in territory recognized as Ukrainian, but as part of the Russian military occupying the territory by force they are not subject to Ukrainian law.

I think the 2 stated exceptions are that it doesn't apply to children of diplomats, since diplomats have diplomatic immunity and are not subject to the laws of the US, and children of a hypothetical invading nation that is occupying American territory, since obviously American laws would not apply in occupied territory. Ie, if the Japanese had had any kids in the Aleutians during the time they occupied those islands in WW2, those kids would not have American citizenship. But those are the only exceptions.

Have you considered that all scientists are part of an elite cabal secretly controlling the entire world, who are probably themselves controlled by the Jews, who are all doing this as part of an evil conspiracy to make Indians the only race left on the planet? It all makes sense if you refuse to take any responsibility for your problems and assume that anything going wrong must be caused by a conspiracy against you.

There was a faction of Christians who supported the Nazis, but all of the Catholics and about half of the Protestants ended up on their bad side. Niemoller, the "First they came for the" guy, was a Protestant who was arrested and thrown in a camp, for example.

The second half of 42 was a disaster. The U-boat campaign slowed down, Torch and Al-Alamein were unmitigated disasters, and even if the Eastern Front hadn't entirely collapsed like it would in 43, it was obviously not going well. The reasons why they did well up until the second half of 1942 are too complicated to explain in a reddit comment. Having the strongest air force in the world dedicated to tactical bombing certainly helped given their situation, though.

Even in the South nobody cares about him. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, those guys are famous and people have opinions about them. But nobody cares one way or another about Jefferson Davis.

They don't care if you are a pedo, they just care if you could generate negative publicity when someone makes writes an article/tweet/whatever calling Reddit pedos for hosting loli hentai. If there's one thing Reddit cares about it is not looking bad to advertisers

Probably their profile was private to begin with, no way someone who posts loli porn keeps an account for 4 years without catching a ban

If you think anything news related on this subreddit is trustable you're genuinely regarded.

Again, context. Who you kiss or who you have sex with is usually a situation where gender is important, so it is implied that if you're picking a word like 'dude' or 'guy' you're doing it with the intent of referring only to men. On the other hand, if you say "There's some dudes over there", that tells the listener very little about the gender of the people you have seen. You probably aren't referring to a group that looks to be exclusively women, but that's about the only information that can be gathered.

If used by itself, referring to someone as a 'cat' (you'd never say they were a cat, you'd use it like "now this cat did such and such") is complimentary and probably implies the person in question is clever. I've only seen it used to refer to men. It's also a pretty old way of speaking, I've heard it recently but only from old guys.

Dudes is usually gender neutral. Singular dude is not. Ie, if you say "I saw a dude doing XYZ" you probably aren't talking about a woman. Context is also relevant. Same thing with guy/guys

Southern English and AAVE aren't identical, but they do have a lot of overlap.