Talk:1520: Degree-Off - Revision history

82.132.244.48: Assuming it was a reply. And ambiguous what direction the reply is trying to argue, too...

2025-06-26T19:05:21Z

Assuming it was a reply. And ambiguous what direction the reply is trying to argue, too...

172.87.19.82 at 15:05, 26 June 2025

2025-06-26T15:05:26Z

172.70.90.237: /* Cut mention of Gaiman? */

2025-02-14T01:53:12Z

‎Cut mention of Gaiman?

Vessəl: /* Cut mention of Gaiman? */ new section

2025-02-13T22:25:19Z

‎Cut mention of Gaiman?: new section

172.71.242.198 at 13:52, 23 November 2023

2023-11-23T13:52:05Z

172.70.90.229 at 13:40, 23 November 2023

2023-11-23T13:40:53Z

141.101.104.103 at 10:02, 23 November 2023

2023-11-23T10:02:30Z

172.69.34.32 at 01:02, 26 November 2020

2020-11-26T01:02:04Z

Scs at 11:33, 27 July 2020

2020-07-27T11:33:00Z

Yamaplos: covid-19 has doubled infectious disease deaths, BUT is just a small percentage of total. Which one should we care about?

2020-06-19T23:34:08Z

covid-19 has doubled infectious disease deaths, BUT is just a small percentage of total. Which one should we care about?

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 It rubs me the wrong way to refer to Randall's interpretation of what the 4 horsemen are as 'incorrect.'  This is fundamentally a mythological tradition, not verifiable or falsifiable fact.  The 'war, famine, pestilence, and death' model may not be what is present in the oldest surviving written sources, but it is a part of the living tradition.  Unless you're a biblical literalist, the mythological interpretation of one person at one time is no more valid than the interpretation of others at other times.  And if you are a biblical literalist, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.  The bible is self-contradictory.  I think I'm going to change it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.32|172.69.34.32]] 01:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
+:It is incorrect, no matter how much you try to defend it. There is no "living myth", we have the original source. {{unsigned ip|172.87.19.82|15:05, 26 June 2025}}
 The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103|141.101.104.103]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 26 June 2025
Line 94:		Line 94:

	It rubs me the wrong way to refer to Randall's interpretation of what the 4 horsemen are as 'incorrect.' This is fundamentally a mythological tradition, not verifiable or falsifiable fact. The 'war, famine, pestilence, and death' model may not be what is present in the oldest surviving written sources, but it is a part of the living tradition. Unless you're a biblical literalist, the mythological interpretation of one person at one time is no more valid than the interpretation of others at other times. And if you are a biblical literalist, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The bible is self-contradictory. I think I'm going to change it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.32\|172.69.34.32]] 01:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)		It rubs me the wrong way to refer to Randall's interpretation of what the 4 horsemen are as 'incorrect.' This is fundamentally a mythological tradition, not verifiable or falsifiable fact. The 'war, famine, pestilence, and death' model may not be what is present in the oldest surviving written sources, but it is a part of the living tradition. Unless you're a biblical literalist, the mythological interpretation of one person at one time is no more valid than the interpretation of others at other times. And if you are a biblical literalist, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The bible is self-contradictory. I think I'm going to change it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.32\|172.69.34.32]] 01:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	It is incorrect, no matter how much you try to defend it. There is no "living myth", we have the original source.

	The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103\|141.101.104.103]]		The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103\|141.101.104.103]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:53, 14 February 2025
Line 101:		Line 101:

	Given everything that's come out about Gaiman recently, would anyone be opposed to cutting the mention in this article? Since he's not direct;y relevant to the comic itself, I don't think anything would be lost. [[User:Vessəl\|Vessəl]] ([[User talk:Vessəl\|talk]]) 22:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)		Given everything that's come out about Gaiman recently, would anyone be opposed to cutting the mention in this article? Since he's not direct;y relevant to the comic itself, I don't think anything would be lost. [[User:Vessəl\|Vessəl]] ([[User talk:Vessəl\|talk]]) 22:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
		+	:You can't cut really "and Gaiman" from "a book by Pratchett and Gaiman" (it's more awkwardly phrased than that, which might be separately addressed, but for the sake of paraphrasing...), and even as overwhelmingly a fan of Pterry, I couldn't sanction crediting just ''him'' as author. Beyond that, I'd argue that the book reference is very apt and valid, so you'd be doing a disservice to remove the whole thing. In fact, the very next person who spotted the fairly obvious connection could probably (rightfully) add it back in, bringing us back to the current question again.
		+	:And, as for the cancelling, there are many troublesome historical creators (Gaiman hardly even the worst, even at face value?) where it would be disproportionate to also 'cancel' their creations in response, even without the above complication.
		+	:Moreover, so far the allegations ''remain'' as allegations. Not to belittle/deny them, just to point out that it seems there's been no significant legal findings ''either way'', it's only been "trial by public opinion" and knee-jerk reputational protections by companies who needed to decide quickly whether to continue to be associated with him and his works-in-development. Maybe no smoke without fire, but it may yet also turn out to be mostly smokescreen by those who would do a disservice. (Again, we just don't know, and realistically can't yet.)
		+	:If it were a public statue intended to highlight a good cause, but with a troublesome origin upon later analysis and maybe more elevated sensibilities, I suppose we'd be thinking of an additional interpretive plaque of some kind, but I don't know how we'd best do it here. Could ''this'' discussion (to be added to once there's anything to actually add) be sufficient? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.237\|172.70.90.237]] 01:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 13 February 2025
Line 97:		Line 97:
	The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103\|141.101.104.103]]		The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103\|141.101.104.103]]
	:(Physicists, not {{wiktionary\|physician}}s...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.229\|172.70.90.229]] 13:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)		:(Physicists, not {{wiktionary\|physician}}s...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.229\|172.70.90.229]] 13:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Cut mention of Gaiman? ==
		+
		+	Given everything that's come out about Gaiman recently, would anyone be opposed to cutting the mention in this article? Since he's not direct;y relevant to the comic itself, I don't think anything would be lost. [[User:Vessəl\|Vessəl]] ([[User talk:Vessəl\|talk]]) 22:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:52, 23 November 2023
Line 96:		Line 96:

	The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103\|141.101.104.103]]		The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103\|141.101.104.103]]
−	:(Physicists, not {{~~wikitionary~~\|physician}}s...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.229\|172.70.90.229]] 13:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)	+	:(Physicists, not {{wiktionary\|physician}}s...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.229\|172.70.90.229]] 13:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:40, 23 November 2023
Line 96:		Line 96:

	The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103\|141.101.104.103]]		The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103\|141.101.104.103]]
		+	:(Physicists, not {{wikitionary\|physician}}s...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.229\|172.70.90.229]] 13:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 23 November 2023
Line 94:		Line 94:

	It rubs me the wrong way to refer to Randall's interpretation of what the 4 horsemen are as 'incorrect.' This is fundamentally a mythological tradition, not verifiable or falsifiable fact. The 'war, famine, pestilence, and death' model may not be what is present in the oldest surviving written sources, but it is a part of the living tradition. Unless you're a biblical literalist, the mythological interpretation of one person at one time is no more valid than the interpretation of others at other times. And if you are a biblical literalist, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The bible is self-contradictory. I think I'm going to change it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.32\|172.69.34.32]] 01:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)		It rubs me the wrong way to refer to Randall's interpretation of what the 4 horsemen are as 'incorrect.' This is fundamentally a mythological tradition, not verifiable or falsifiable fact. The 'war, famine, pestilence, and death' model may not be what is present in the oldest surviving written sources, but it is a part of the living tradition. Unless you're a biblical literalist, the mythological interpretation of one person at one time is no more valid than the interpretation of others at other times. And if you are a biblical literalist, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The bible is self-contradictory. I think I'm going to change it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.32\|172.69.34.32]] 01:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	The best part is that the biologist's attempt to insult physicians only makes the latter sound badass. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.103\|141.101.104.103]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:02, 26 November 2020
Line 92:		Line 92:

	For what it's worth, I have changed the transcript to refer to a "grown-up Science Girl" instead of Hairbun. She's referred to that way in the Explanation, although I see there are several comments in this discussion arguing for Hairbun. —[[User:Scs\|Scs]] ([[User talk:Scs\|talk]]) 11:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)		For what it's worth, I have changed the transcript to refer to a "grown-up Science Girl" instead of Hairbun. She's referred to that way in the Explanation, although I see there are several comments in this discussion arguing for Hairbun. —[[User:Scs\|Scs]] ([[User talk:Scs\|talk]]) 11:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	It rubs me the wrong way to refer to Randall's interpretation of what the 4 horsemen are as 'incorrect.' This is fundamentally a mythological tradition, not verifiable or falsifiable fact. The 'war, famine, pestilence, and death' model may not be what is present in the oldest surviving written sources, but it is a part of the living tradition. Unless you're a biblical literalist, the mythological interpretation of one person at one time is no more valid than the interpretation of others at other times. And if you are a biblical literalist, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The bible is self-contradictory. I think I'm going to change it.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.32\|172.69.34.32]] 01:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 27 July 2020
Line 90:		Line 90:

	::Took me a while to figure out the numbers, (I'm here 'cause I'm dumb, right). [[https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2018/03/infectious-disease-deaths-decline-across-us-not-evenly UMN says that by 2017]], infectious diseases were "down to 34.10 deaths per 100,000 persons." All causes put together are around 1,000 per 100,000. Anyway, after doing the numbers 3 times, by June 19 2020, depending your source, Covid-19 deaths are up to 120 K in the US. Which translates roughly to 36.55 per 100,000? Meaning, deaths by infectious diseases MORE THAN DOUBLED. Which of course is terrible! But then, that's still about ''3% of all death causes''. Which encourages those who say that all this is a tempest in a teacup! <br>Oh, do I wish Randall would show up and make a nice little graph like he does so often by comparing what is important with what is not, so all of us have sure guidance about how we are to take this, if as a serious thing, or just as a blip.[[User:Yamaplos\|Yamaplos]] ([[User talk:Yamaplos\|talk]]) 23:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)		::Took me a while to figure out the numbers, (I'm here 'cause I'm dumb, right). [[https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2018/03/infectious-disease-deaths-decline-across-us-not-evenly UMN says that by 2017]], infectious diseases were "down to 34.10 deaths per 100,000 persons." All causes put together are around 1,000 per 100,000. Anyway, after doing the numbers 3 times, by June 19 2020, depending your source, Covid-19 deaths are up to 120 K in the US. Which translates roughly to 36.55 per 100,000? Meaning, deaths by infectious diseases MORE THAN DOUBLED. Which of course is terrible! But then, that's still about ''3% of all death causes''. Which encourages those who say that all this is a tempest in a teacup! <br>Oh, do I wish Randall would show up and make a nice little graph like he does so often by comparing what is important with what is not, so all of us have sure guidance about how we are to take this, if as a serious thing, or just as a blip.[[User:Yamaplos\|Yamaplos]] ([[User talk:Yamaplos\|talk]]) 23:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	For what it's worth, I have changed the transcript to refer to a "grown-up Science Girl" instead of Hairbun. She's referred to that way in the Explanation, although I see there are several comments in this discussion arguing for Hairbun. —[[User:Scs\|Scs]] ([[User talk:Scs\|talk]]) 11:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 19 June 2020
Line 88:		Line 88:

	Well, the horseman is back...[[User:Rereading xkcd\|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd\|talk]]) 06:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)		Well, the horseman is back...[[User:Rereading xkcd\|Rereading xkcd]] ([[User talk:Rereading xkcd\|talk]]) 06:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Took me a while to figure out the numbers, (I'm here 'cause I'm dumb, right). [[https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2018/03/infectious-disease-deaths-decline-across-us-not-evenly UMN says that by 2017]], infectious diseases were "down to 34.10 deaths per 100,000 persons." All causes put together are around 1,000 per 100,000. Anyway, after doing the numbers 3 times, by June 19 2020, depending your source, Covid-19 deaths are up to 120 K in the US. Which translates roughly to 36.55 per 100,000? Meaning, deaths by infectious diseases MORE THAN DOUBLED. Which of course is terrible! But then, that's still about ''3% of all death causes''. Which encourages those who say that all this is a tempest in a teacup! <br>Oh, do I wish Randall would show up and make a nice little graph like he does so often by comparing what is important with what is not, so all of us have sure guidance about how we are to take this, if as a serious thing, or just as a blip.[[User:Yamaplos\|Yamaplos]] ([[User talk:Yamaplos\|talk]]) 23:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)