Data analyst at @Netlify. Previously co-founder @npmjs, started "Look at this weird graph!" He/him. 🏳️‍🌈🇹🇹🇬🇧🇺🇸
RT @seldo: Hell hath no fury like a bunch of white guys asked politely to make a small, cost-free change to their vocabulary.
Obviously, ending homelessness is not so simple and could not be done overnight. But Bay Area politicians treat it like it's an impossible task. Would you pay a 1.5% tax to end homelessness?
It seems like the Bay Area could permanently end homelessness here by a 5% tax on the top 10% of earners exactly once, and after that a 1.3% tax every year. You can shift it around if you like; a 1.5% tax per year to avoid the big bump. A lower tax per head on the top 20%, etc.
So 10% of 7m is 700,000 people, each earning $384k/year. $13bn is $18.5k each, or 5% of their earnings in 1 year. The $3.5bn maintenance is $5k each per year, or 1.3%. (Please feel free to check my math here)
3. Per the last census there are ~7m people in the Bay Area; the census was 10 years ago but let's stick with that number.
A quick napkin math experiment on homelessness in the Bay Area: 1. This article estimates it would cost ~$13bn to build homes for every homeless person in the bay area, and ~$3.5bn annually to maintain services for them. tml
2. This article on income inequality in the Bay Area notes that the top 10% of earners in the Bay Area earn about $384,000 a year.
It seems the fact that preventing people from unionizing is literally against the law is much less widely known than I would have ever assumed.
I miss drinking coffee in places that are not my house.
"Avoid it like the plague" means "do everything you can to avoid it for 3 months and then get bored and let it happen" which is honestly a pretty useful pattern of human behavior to have an expression for.
RT @JamaalBowmanNY: RT if you think Congress should make Juneteenth a national holiday.
They verified my identity with SSN and stuff and *then* got my gender wrong. I have had an account with them for 10 years, including an incident of identity theft in which I sat in their offices with three forms of ID and they carefully read all 3 and then misgendered me again.
Hertz declared bankruptcy, then a bunch of people started buying its stock for some reason, so now Hertz is trying to get back out of bankruptcy by selling new stock. This is... unusual.
This is where Ivar bumps into our next subject, Alfred the Great. Since I don't have a lot on Alfred otherwise, this is where I'm going to end Ivar and we'll pick up the Viking Age story in my next thread.
So maybe he was tall, maybe he was persuasive, maybe he was bendy, maybe he was impotent, maybe he was some combination. Regardless, in 865 he managed to persuade all the Viking tribes to band together into a huge fleet known as the Great Heathen Army, and attack England.
Theory 8: he had huge bones and "boneless" is ironic. Excavations at St Wystan's southern Derbyshire, where some sources say Ivar died, have uncovered a huge burial site of an important Viking who was 9 feet tall. A famous warrior king being exceptionally tall? Likelihood: 8/10.
Theory 7: he was very persuasive. Here "boneless" is a metaphor for snake-like persuasive skills. The Vikings were big on snakes; Ivar's brother was called Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye. Now you're getting to something you might call your much-loved warrior king. Likelihood: 7/10.
Theory 6: he was really bendy due to a genetic condition like Marfan syndrome. Depending on severity, Marfan can make you both tall (see later) and notably flexible. His condition is described as being evident from birth, so we're getting to plausible now. Likelihood: 6/10.
Theory 5: he was really athletic and bendy. One source claims that he was particularly loved by the women for his antics in bed. In this case the "boneless" meant high flexibility, something more plausible in a famous warrior. Plausibility: 5/10.
Theory 4: he had no sperm. In this one "boneless" was a metaphor for impotence. Ivar had no children, so this is at least potentially possible. Arguments against: he was powerful, well-liked and notably violent man, so an insulting nickname would be short-lived. Likelihood: 3/10.
Theory 3: he had bones but they were really brittle due to a genetic condition. In this one he'd be able to walk around but maybe having weak bones would get the exaggerated reputation as having no bones. Again: still a warrior, unlikely to have been fragile. Likelihood: 2/10.
Theory 2: he had no legs. Viking words for "leg" and "bone" were the same, so it's possible he had no legs. Arguments against this: he was a famous warrior king, and 8th century battlefields were not notably accessible. Some sources claim he was carried around! Likelihood: 1/10.
Theory 1: he had no bones. At least one source said he had "only gristle" where his bones should be. Arguments against this are that you can't have *no* bones, you'd die, but 12th century Norse sagas weren't big on fact checking. Likelihood: 0/10.
Vikings were big users of nicknames to distinguish each other. Usually the name was descriptive, sometimes it was sarcastic. Frustratingly, despite his extremely memorable name, the reason Ivar the Boneless got his nickname is unrecorded. There are lots of theories!
All of which is to say: the reason Ragnar was in Northumbria is indeed because he was attempting to pillage it, so fair play to Aella for defending himself, though the snake pit seems a little overkill. When Ivar and his brothers heard about it they were pissed.
The result was a race of globe-trotters. There is evidence that as traders they regularly got as far as Baghdad in modern-day Iraq. They also colonized Iceland, Greenland (temporarily) and (even more temporarily) North America, of which more in later bios.
But Vikings also had a technology nobody else did: their longboats. These were faster, stronger, more versatile, and more reliable ships than anybody else had in the world at that time. Vikings were also great navigators, though it's not clear today how they managed this.
The Vikings had a concept of local government called a þing, pronounced "Thing", which makes Viking histories accidentally hilarious to modern ears, because Vikings are constantly "holding a thing", "attending a thing", "demanding a thing" etc. like they're from LA.
Most of the time the Vikings were farmers, fishers and traders, living across Northern Europe. They didn't have a single ruler but instead a bunch of unrelated tribes who peacefully co-existed. They had a complex system of laws, they played games, they even played chess.
The Vikings have a reputation for being basically pirates, who travelled the seas, raiding and pillaging coastal towns, and this is true as far as it goes: they definitely did a lot of raiding and pillaging. But it turns out this was sort of a part-time hobby for them.
The reason Ivar and his brothers invaded England was to avenge Ragnar's death at the hands of king Aella of Northumbria, who executed him by throwing him into a pit of snakes. Of course, this begs the question as to what Rangar was doing in Northumbria in the first place.
So much amazing stuff is attributed to Ragnar that historians consider him semi-mythical, the Viking version of King Arthur. But we know about his kids and what they did, and while details are pretty hazy about them, they definitely weren't myths. They invaded England in 865.
Ivar's dad Ragnar seems like a pretty interesting dude, but it seems people liked him so much they started attributing things to him he'd never done, much as we attribute any witty saying to Mark Twain, until today nobody has any idea what Ragnar really did or was like.
Fun fact: Vikings didn't call themselves Vikings. "Viking" was a verb, not a noun. It described the way they rowed their longboats in shifts. So they were called "Vikings" like you'd call other people "Sailors". The word "Viking" existed as a surname, like "Smith" or "Tailor".
Ivar was born around 825 (plus or minus like 20 years, details are hazy), so not too long after the death of our last subject, Charlemagne. He was the son of Ragnar Lodbrok, a Viking king of the Denmark/Norway/Sweden area.
Our focus in #EuropeanBios has been moving north from the Mediterranean through France and Germany, and now to Norway. The years 793-1066 are known as the Viking Age, and our first stop is going to be #18, Ivar The Boneless, who honestly I'm covering mostly because of his name.
As before: forgive me for taking a break from the current world to post another history thread. I've got quite a few backed up so they're going to come pretty frequently for a week or so.
I am not a military expert but I am told that General Milley publicly saying he should not have appeared in a photo op with the president (and also that George Floyd's killing was "senseless, brutal") is a Big Deal:
My current strategy when asked for a "wet" signature is to act like I literally don't understand what one is and keep asking them to define it until we agree that a printer putting ink on paper and a pen putting ink on paper are the same.
Institutions that require a "wet" signature in 2020: should they merely be shunned, or immediately forced to dissolve?
It is 2020 and a GOP state senator is asking if "colored people" get covid more often because they are dirtier. This man is also a doctor!
Guff is a cute (and also unusual looking) dog and gets lots of attention on the street but by a long way his greatest fans are huge, tall, butch guys with beards, who kneel down on the street and make coochie-coo noises as our furry gargoyle basks in their love.
Sometimes it's hard to get going in the morning.
Trump denies his history of bankruptcy.
The people this is making fun of will never know why.
The news vs the propaganda.
The US general election 2020 is 145 days away.
RT @leftiblog: If cops shoot tear gas at you, that’s “crowd control”, but if you pick it up and throw it back, that’s “assault with a deadl…
Trump is attempting to instigate a race riot.
© 2009 creamsocial