Trans Oceanic Knowledge Exchange

[soyperson]

Just now, Pinnacle-Ferring said:

 

You're right. "Adamah" means ground and Adam's name comes from that word because he was made from the earth.

And yes, an apple is never mentioned in Genesis. The imagery of the apple came mainly from later Christian interpretations. In the talmud there are several opinions as to what the fruit was, including a fig (because Adam and Eve made clothes out of fig leaves after they ate the fruit) or even wheat. The wheat creates an interesting interpretation, though. Cultivating wheat was a huge step forward for mankind, enabling them to easily make bread. Could this be a kind of metaphor for mankind no longer depending on G-D and being hunter-gatherers and becoming self-dependant farmers?

I suppose it could. 

I think we've turned the Trans-Oceanic Knowledge Exchange into Religious Philosophy thread.

[Pinnacle-Ferring he/him]

19 minutes ago, bleeder said:

I suppose it could. 

I think we've turned the Trans-Oceanic Knowledge Exchange into Religious Philosophy thread.

Sorry...

[soyperson]

51 minutes ago, Pinnacle-Ferring said:

Sorry...

Don't apologize; I love philosophy! And everyone else should too!

[Delightful]

On 01/11/2016 at 8:26 AM, Mestiv said:

In Poland squash is a form of tennis played indoors against a wall

Ive heard of that! It's also a yellow vegetable that tastes like zucchini  

On 04/11/2016 at 6:47 PM, Nightbird said:

Question for Australian Sharders: In Australia, what does the term "chips" mean, assuming you're talking about food? I know it means different things in England vs the USA.

 

On 05/11/2016 at 1:18 AM, Darkness Ascendant said:

Stupid Hollywood. And kids shows. We call them both chips here. We call the skinny meaty ones fries. French fries.

Meaty fries? Dude we must have grown up in different part of Australia.

british chips = us fries = Aus chips

british crisps = us chips = Aus chips

aus french fries are like crisps/chips, except they're cut flat and rectangular  

On 06/11/2016 at 9:47 AM, Pinnacle-Ferring said:

In Israel we have some funny names for chips.

So the salty, crispy kind we call "tapuchips" which is an amalgam of the word "tapuach adamah"(potato- literally "ground apple") and the word "chips".

For the fried kind we commit an egregious grammar crime. We double the plural suffix. So we call them "chips", but in plural we call them "chipsim".

This has been an impromptu Hebrew lesson.

I've also seen the plural as tapuchipsim, I think. Thankfully neither are as annoying as siddurims. 

also bourekas. Israelis seems to use bourekas and not boureka as the singular form  

funny story, my brother once asked me to pass the aerial potato juice. 

2 hours ago, bleeder said:

I suppose it could. 

I think we've turned the Trans-Oceanic Knowledge Exchange into Religious Philosophy thread.

Such is the Shard. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited November 7, 2016 by Delightful

[Darkness Ascendant he/him]

14 hours ago, Delightful said:

Meaty fries? Dude we must have grown up in different part of Australia.

Sydney. You?

15 hours ago, Delightful said:

british chips = us fries = Aus chips

british crisps = us chips = Aus chips

aus french fries are like crisps/chips, except they're cut flat and rectangular  

That's an easier way to put it lol

[Delightful]

2 hours ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

Sydney. You?

That's an easier way to put it lol

Maybe my chips weren't meaty as as an ease of kosher thing. 

[mattig89ch he/him]

This is something I've always passively wondered.  Here in the US, we divide large parts of our country into States.  Then sub divide states into Counties (pronounced k-ow-n-ties [not sure how to sound out ies]).  And subdivide counties into Towns.  Do they do the same sub division in other countries?

[Oversleep]

24 minutes ago, mattig89ch said:

This is something I've always passively wondered.  Here in the US, we divide large parts of our country into States.  Then sub divide states into Counties (pronounced k-ow-n-ties [not sure how to sound out ies]).  And subdivide counties into Towns.  Do they do the same sub division in other countries?

Poland is also divided: 16 * województwo (voivodeship) -> powiat (county)-> gmina (municipality)

Voivodeship can contain between 12 and 42 counties. County can contain between 3 and 19 municipalities.

Some cities are large enough to be a powiat, while gmina can contain town and its surrounding villages.

[Eki]

6 hours ago, mattig89ch said:

This is something I've always passively wondered.  Here in the US, we divide large parts of our country into States.  Then sub divide states into Counties (pronounced k-ow-n-ties [not sure how to sound out ies]).  And subdivide counties into Towns.  Do they do the same sub division in other countries?

We only have counties (län) and municipalities (kommuner) here in Sweden, but then again we have fewer inhabitants, so we don't need more levels.

Politically, it's mostly healthcare stuff and public transportation that's dealt with on a county level. Lots of other government organizations are structured by counties too, though. But most of the politics happen on a national level or in the individual municipalities.

[Kaymyth she/her]

15 hours ago, mattig89ch said:

This is something I've always passively wondered.  Here in the US, we divide large parts of our country into States.  Then sub divide states into Counties (pronounced k-ow-n-ties [not sure how to sound out ies]).  And subdivide counties into Towns.  Do they do the same sub division in other countries?

England has counties (but not states).  Canada has provinces.  Australia has states.  There's a lot of variance.

[Pinnacle-Ferring he/him]

1 hour ago, Kaymyth said:

England has counties (but not states).  Canada has provinces.  Australia has states.  There's a lot of variance.

Canada actually has provinces and territories. I'm not sure what the difference is, but apparently there is one.

[Claincy he/him]

Australia has a mixture of states and territories, all of the states and the larger territories have their own governments in addition to the federal government.

Now things get a little complex, as I understand it:

For a federal election states and territories are divided into electoral divisions.

For a state election I think it varies from state to state, but Victoria divides into regions and from there into districts, each of which contains a number of suburbs.

There are also a large number of local councils in Victoria, each governing a "city". There are a fair few of these cities within the city of Melbourne (just to be confusing). These cities are further divided into separate wards, each of which contains a number of suburbs.

The suburbs are the same throughout but the electoral divisions/regions/districts/cities and wards are all different

[Yata he/him]

Italy has 20 Regions (maybe you herd some of them as Toscana or Sardegna), 107 provinces (that has the name of the most relevant city inside of them) and in the end cities.

But for some years here there is a willing to remove the province as territorial area.

I have a question for the American Sharder, it is about politics:

From days every TV program, post on internet and common chat is about your Presidential elections. And I hear tons of people hate Trump but also dislike H. Clinton....Now I am a bit confused, how the most unlikeble (from popolations) arrived to the finals ? There were not better candidates along the way ? I ask this from a foreing point of view, therefore I am quite sure to miss something.

[mattig89ch he/him]

On 11/9/2016 at 6:43 PM, Claincy said:

Australia has a mixture of states and territories, all of the states and the larger territories have their own governments in addition to the federal government.

Now things get a little complex, as I understand it:

For a federal election states and territories are divided into electoral divisions.

For a state election I think it varies from state to state, but Victoria divides into regions and from there into districts, each of which contains a number of suburbs.

There are also a large number of local councils in Victoria, each governing a "city". There are a fair few of these cities within the city of Melbourne (just to be confusing). These cities are further divided into separate wards, each of which contains a number of suburbs.

The suburbs are the same throughout but the electoral divisions/regions/districts/cities and wards are all different

Are states and territories the same thing?  Or do states contain territories (or territories contain states)?

28 minutes ago, Yata said:

Italy has 20 Regions (maybe you herd some of them as Toscana or Sardegna), 107 provinces (that has the name of the most relevant city inside of them) and in the end cities.

But for some years here there is a willing to remove the province as territorial area.

So Italy divides its country by regions, then subdivides regions into provinces?  Do provinces have subdivisions?

Thanks for the replies all.  I've actually learned alot more then I thought I would.  I had figured the same subdivision was everywhere, just with different titles.  I'd be curious to hear from other countries as well.

Quote

I have a question for the American Sharder, it is about politics:

From days every TV program, post on internet and common chat is about your Presidential elections. And I hear tons of people hate Trump but also dislike H. Clinton....Now I am a bit confused, how the most unlikeble (from popolations) arrived to the finals ? There were not better candidates along the way ? I ask this from a foreing point of view, therefore I am quite sure to miss something.

 

I can provide a laymans answer to your question.  But keep in mind, I'm no political expert.

Each party puts forward a few candidates (not sure how the candidates are chosen), then people who have registered as part of the respective political party vote on who they want to run as president (this process is known as the primaries).  Then, once both political candidates are chosen by their respective party, the country at large gets to vote on the next president.  During their campaigns, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump managed to convince the voters of their respective parties, that they would be the best choice.  Once the parties had chosen their respective candidates, we were down to our last 2 choices.

Technically we don't have a 2 party system.  Each year, a number of smaller parties put forward one or 2 candidates as well.  But in practice, we mostly just stick to the 2 parties.  Unless a third party does something drastic to get enough attention, most of the country has no idea which third party candidates are running.

Most people actually believe, if you vote for a third party, its a waste of a vote.  Because its very remote that a third party candidate will achieve victory, and actually run the country.  But nothing is truly impossible, and if a party manages to get a certain percentage of the vote (I think its 8%), then they are required to be allowed into the next election's debates.  Of course, the 2 major parties don't want that, and will do their best to suppress the other parties (mostly through ads on tv/radio/the internet, and through average people who go door to door).  Fair?  Certainly not.  But its not illegal either.

Again, I'm no expert. 

*to everyone else* And if I've said something wrong, please feel free to correct me.

Edited November 13, 2016 by mattig89ch
fix quote format

[Yata he/him]

9 minutes ago, mattig89ch said:

So Italy divides its country by regions, then subdivides regions into provinces?  Do provinces have subdivisions?

Yes exactly.

Thank you for the answer about the politic part...it's almost like here (but we have a greater number of party...our politics is quite ridiculus).

I actually can't understand how someone may prefer to don't vote instead vote an "useless candidate" but problably this has sense in the mind of who did.

I see that almost 50% of the population didn't vote and to me this is always bad...but again it's something that happened also here

[Darkness Ascendant he/him]

On 09/11/2016 at 1:06 PM, mattig89ch said:

This is something I've always passively wondered.  Here in the US, we divide large parts of our country into States.  Then sub divide states into Counties (pronounced k-ow-n-ties [not sure how to sound out ies]).  And subdivide counties into Towns.  Do they do the same sub division in other countries?

I'll do Australia.

Continent-->Country-->States/Territores--> Electorates-->Shires/Towns/Local Councils

[mattig89ch he/him]

48 minutes ago, Yata said:

Yes exactly.

Thank you for the answer about the politic part...it's almost like here (but we have a greater number of party...our politics is quite ridiculus).

I actually can't understand how someone may prefer to don't vote instead vote an "useless candidate" but problably this has sense in the mind of who did.

I see that almost 50% of the population didn't vote and to me this is always bad...but again it's something that happened also here

For what I agree with you on the election bit.  Democracy only works if you vote for the person you want as your leader.  Not voting, or voting for the lesser of 2 evils doesn't really make it work.

And you missed a question, but I can see why.  Do provinces have any sub divisions?

21 minutes ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

I'll do Australia.

Continent-->Country-->States/Territores--> Electorates-->Shires/Towns/Local Councils

So States and Territories are the same thing?  Same rights, privilages, ect?

[Yata he/him]

2 hours ago, mattig89ch said:

So Italy divides its country by regions, then subdivides regions into provinces?  Do provinces have subdivisions?

Yes sorry I forgot to reply to that part. Provinces have not subdivisions

[Darkness Ascendant he/him]

55 minutes ago, mattig89ch said:

For what I agree with you on the election bit.  Democracy only works if you vote for the person you want as your leader.  Not voting, or voting for the lesser of 2 evils doesn't really make it work.

And you missed a question, but I can see why.  Do provinces have any sub divisions?

So States and Territories are the same thing?  Same rights, privilages, ect?

Almost the same, the territories are self governed, and only have the power the Commonwealth gives them.

[mattig89ch he/him]

1 hour ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

Almost the same, the territories are self governed, and only have the power the Commonwealth gives them.

Interesting, few more questions on this topic.  Feel free to stop answering if/when you get sick of the questions.

First, Commonwealth = Country?

Second, you don't have a centralized government?  One that can pass laws all states/territories have to follow?

How it works in the US is the Federal Government has the power to pass laws all states have to follow.  But the states have the power to govern themselves, in any area the Federal Government hasn't passed laws.  Similarly counties can govern themselves in any areas States or the Federal Government haven't covered.  And any towns within the counties can pass laws any of the above authorities haven't covered.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

^The above is why, for a number of years, Montana highways had no maximum speed limit. Until the federal government mandated speed limits, signs would list the speed limit as "Reasonable and Prudent." 

[Claincy he/him]

24 minutes ago, mattig89ch said:

Interesting, few more questions on this topic.  Feel free to stop answering if/when you get sick of the questions.

First, Commonwealth = Country?

Second, you don't have a centralized government?  One that can pass laws all states/territories have to follow?

How it works in the US is the Federal Government has the power to pass laws all states have to follow.  But the states have the power to govern themselves, in any area the Federal Government hasn't passed laws.  Similarly counties can govern themselves in any areas States or the Federal Government haven't covered.  And any towns within the counties can pass laws any of the above authorities haven't covered.

We have a federal government that works in much the same way.

Regarding territories: some are partially self governed as Darkness said, the others (generally the smaller ones) are administered by the federal government. From a practical standpoint I don't think there is that much difference between the territories with their own government and states.

Australia is officially the "Commonwealth of Australia", though outside of official stuff it doesn't get referred to like that very often.

[Eki]

6 hours ago, mattig89ch said:

Each party puts forward a few candidates (not sure how the candidates are chosen), then people who have registered as part of the respective political party vote on who they want to run as president (this process is known as the primaries).  Then, once both political candidates are chosen by their respective party, the country at large gets to vote on the next president.  During their campaigns, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump managed to convince the voters of their respective parties, that they would be the best choice.  Once the parties had chosen their respective candidates, we were down to our last 2 choices.

To add to this, both major parties use a system called "first past the post", meaning that the candidate who receives the most votes, even if they don't get a majority, win. I think the Republicans have FPTP within every state as well, meaning if you get the most votes within a state, you get 100% of the votes in that state. It's terrible.

The Republicans had so many candidates that all the more reasonable votes got diluted across them. I'm not sure if Trump ever got a majority in any state during the preliminaries. I doubt many people had Trump as their second choice, so if the Republicans had used a more sensible system like single transferable votes (where you rank all the choices, and if your top candidate is in last place, they get eliminated and your vote transfered to the next in line), I doubt Trump would have gotten very far.

The US has FPTP for every individual state in the actual elections as well. That's why Trump got so many more seats than Clinton in the Electoral College, while still narrowly losing the popular vote. It's also why the concept of "swing states" are a thing: only states where both candidates have a chance of winning really matter for the election results. This is one of the reasons why voting participation is so low in the US, and why so many feel disenfranchised. Unfortinately, the people in power benefit from the current system, because it likely got them elected in the first place.

 

tl;dr First past the post is a terrible system and the US is in dire need of reform.

 

If the US used ranked voting, there would have been no need for Bernie Sanders to drop out. People wouldn't be afraid to vote for a third party, because if the party lost, their vote would just be transferred to their second favorite. Candidates wouldn't have to pander to the more extreme people in their party, in order to secure the internal vote.

First past the post is designed for a pre-computer age. There is no good reason to keep it.

[Kaymyth she/her]

Maine just passed ranked voting in the general election.  It's the first step.

[Eki]

11 minutes ago, Kaymyth said:

Maine just passed ranked voting in the general election.  It's the first step.

I saw that. Not for the presidential elections though, right? But everything else?