Priests will read it and then talk to their congregations about it on Sundays throughout the year, if not explicitly, then in how it shapes their homilies.
In all my life of being Catholic (I’ll turn 50 this year), I’ve heard less than 5 homilies-sermons that amounted, in whole or part, to a reflection on a papal encyclical. Over time there may be juicy papal quotes that make it into Sunday preaching, but that’s about it.
Instead, priests tend to focus on the readings for that Sunday’s Mass and more general themes.
That being said, I hope many priests do read an encyclical any time a pope publishes one, but they’re very, very busy most days and weeks, so whether any one priest will commit time to reading a particular encyclical, old and dusty or hot off the presses, will depend on a lot of factors that are as varied as their individual circumstances and personalities.
> The simplest explanation of why Alice will never get to 20 is this: the multiplication table traditionally stops with the twelves, so if you continue this nonsense progression—4 times 5 is 12, 4 times 6 is 13, 4 times 7 is 14, and so on—you end with 4 times 12 (the highest she can go) is 19—just one short of 20.
Gardner then writes "A. L. Taylor, in his book The White Knight, advances an interesting but more complicated theory" which is the changing base theory.
He ends with "For another interpretation of Alice's arithmetic, see "Multiplication in Changing Bases: A Note on Lewis Carroll," by Francine Abeles, in Historia Mathematica, Vol. 3 (1976), pages 183-84."
Up to 12? Is that a British/Anglosphere/Victorian thing? In Poland they teach up to 10, which is suffinient for arbitrarily large numbers because they also teach long division and how to combine it with times table. Technically up to 9 would be sufficient but 10 is such a nice round number.
It is yes. The anglosphere has historically been somewhat base 12 in currency, time and units of measurement.
Currency is now metric but there’s still a few base 12 things in common usage (feet and inches) in the us at least. Nobody’s gone to metric time yet and base 12 transfers smoothly to base 60 too.
Of course it's because of imperial units. TIL, thanks. But on a sidenote, I question the utility of knowing x11 and x12 when working with time. x15 could be useful, unfortunate they don't teach that (but I think most people with higher education learn it on their own).
Feet and inches long predate imperial units, and the US has never used the imperial system, btw. “Imperial” has a specific meaning and isn’t just “anything not metric”.
Anyway, base 12 is also built into most Germanic languages which have unique names for 11 and 12 (rather than something along the lines of “one-teen” and “two-teen”, which is more common in Romance languages IIRC.
Out of the most spoken romance languages, Spanish and Portuguese have distinct names up to 15, French and Italian up to 16, while Romanian does stop at 10. This suggests hexadecimal influence to me.
The best solution I know of is to get three-link segments of chain and put one on each screw as it goes into the ground. That not only marks the spot, it also gives you a flexible attachment point which is useful in all sorts of situations. (Two links would be pinned in a stationary fashion.)
Biggest problem is it’s a pain in the ass to chop up all that chain, and nobody sells them in pre-cut lengths.
Closest I've been to losing vision in one eye was creating these 3x chain links for Burning Man.
Naive thought: I could use a large bolt cutter to cut chain links. Started trying to cut a link, felt it was sketchy, went and put on some safety glasses.
Restart cutting (had these bolt cutters with like 1m long arms), apply full force, jaws slip a bit on the chain, jaws bite hard. Chunks of steel fly into my chin and face, metal chunks embedded in chin, cracked safety glasses. Dodged a bullet.
Ended using a small welded up jig so I could stretch the chain and then use angle grinder to cut the chain links. Still sketchy, but no flying metal chunks.
Can't blame unions, considering how easily Europe gets it done. Most likely issue is that in the US, every landowner and minor municipality is empowered to delay and obstruct these projects and thus milk them.
Yea I would definitely like to know what the response is to eminent domain in other countries where its working better. I've never been in that situation and I can totally understand the resistance to losing your property, but I can't see American's being particularly unique in that feeling. Maybe the laws are just more permissive in the US for contesting the government.
In California specifically there are also environmental regulations like CEQA that provide another avenue for blocking such things, independent of eminent domain issues. Even if someone is building on their own land, lots of environmental review is required, and individuals or groups can sue on the basis that such review was inadequate. This ties things up for a long time. There are legitimate reasons to want environmental review, but the way it works in CA now, CEQA is largely just a tool people use to delay projects they don't want.
Details matter. Most countries have environmental laws, but their teeth differ.
Polish environmental law is quite notorious for being deliberately easy on developers (at least outside national parks), which translates into a lot of construction activity.
OTOH Californian CEQA is such a NIMBY/BANANA weapon of mass anti-construction that I have heard of it, despite being located a third of a world away.
I'm just a little frustrated they keep going on about how safe and ethical they are for keeping the more advanced capabilities from us. I wish they would wait to make an announcement until they have something to show, rather than this constant almost gloating.
To me it feels more like learning to cook versus learning how to repair ovens and run a farm. Software engineering isn’t about writing code any more than it’s about writing machine code or designing CPUs. It’s about bringing great software into existence.
reply