That top line is going to drop and then flatten out once your back goes.

Do you mean the tamale or the corn husk?

I assumed that was the padded case that a lot of harps come with.

I was more concerned about things like the neck getting cracked as I doubt he took care to transport it carefully, but extremely dry air can also cause the wood to crack.

The minimum price for that type of harp is over $10,000, but that would be for a much smaller one.

That picture looks like it’s a concert grand harp, and even used it’s hard to find one for less than $15,000.

On top of that, they’re both delicate and sensitive to temperature and humidity. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he destroyed the harp by doing that.

EDIT: Based on the shape of the pillar, I’m guessing that is a Lyon & Healy Style 30, which retails for $30,700

100% This.

Also, being an evolution of sundials is the reason all analog clocks move their hands in the same direction.

The best part of this is that’s taken word-for-word from the original book.

As a kid I just assumed that was a Muppets joke but in actuality the only thing they added was the “Yay!” at the end.

The problem is that rational numbers can be mapped (1 to 1) to the integers (e.g. just encode each rational number as an integer), so there are not more rational numbers than integers.

He’s tempted briefly when Frodo had been captured and he carries the ring, but he breaks out of it.

I’m pretty sure I have exactly this same table. We got it from Ikea around 16 years ago (and it’s surprisingly good quality for Ikea).

That bracket you linked to looks exactly like the hardware on ours.

It was a lot better than I expected it to be… but to be fair, that wasn’t a very high bar to clear.

Conversely, punctuation that was part of the quoted source needs to be included in the quotes.

The reason there’s room for argument is because there’s no simple rule that adequately covers all scenarios.

Hopefully the muscle man is just muscle. Otherwise he risks injuring his knees by overstriding like that.

I think Fresh Off The Boat probably doesn’t fit either; I only saw a few episodes, but none of them tried to present a nagging wife trope.

You’re giving transphobic bigots too much credit; no one reads a verse saying that eunuchs aren’t allowed in the temple and infers that it’s a sin to be trans.

They aren’t reading the Bible and then developing prejudices based on what it says; that’s not what’s happening here.

Instead, what they are doing is starting with the prejudices they already have and then fishing through the Bible trying to find anything that even remotely matches so they can twist it into a post-hoc justification.

In this specific case, that verse doesn’t justify their position in any way shape or form.

The only reason anyone would interpret that as condemnation of trans people is if they’re actively looking for excuses to condemn them.

First off, that verse is talking about eunuchs rather than trans people, which is actually a really important distinction.

Further, that verse doesn’t even say that being a eunuch is bad; it just says they’re not allowed to enter the temple. which, for what it’s worth, hasn’t even existed for thousands of years.

Moreover, it is immediately followed by a verse saying the same thing about anyone whose ancestors (up to 10 generations back) were illegitimate children.

So, you can’t interpret it as saying that it’s a sin to be trans unless you also interpret it as saying it’s a sin to have great-great-great grandparents who weren’t married.

You’re right that neither the Bible nor any other religious text is a legitimate reason to persecute people, but that’s not what’s going on here.

They aren’t motivated by what the Bible teaches, they’re motivated by bigotry and performing mental acrobatics to try to find anything in the Bible that they can somehow twist into an excuse for their bigotry.

I feel silly now for not realizing that was a stage name.

I straight up thought her actual name was “Whoopi”.

News agencies are reporting the wrong thing here.

They’re presenting as if the point of contention is whether or not this is a bad idea, but in this case that’s a meaningless question to ask.

This idea isn’t bad, it’s nonsense.

There’s literally no such thing as a tariff on movies; it’s not something that is even possible even if it were legal.

Tariffs are taxes on the import of goods; no goods are being imported when a movie is filmed in another country, so there’s nothing you can charge a tariff on.

So, this is a case of Trump demonstrating that he has no idea what tariffs even are.

Reporters aren’t reporting on that at all, though… they’re just taking it as a given that Trump’s threats are coherent and then looking for counter arguments using that as a given.

The result is that they completely miss the biggest part of this story; Trump has no idea what tariffs actually are.

Kudos on calling out your own mistakes.

We all get things wrong; what’s important is that you own up to it when that happens and correcting yourself.

The most fucked up thing about this was that her single issue was demanding everyone support a genocide.

I feel like this is one of those “a broken clock is right twice a day” scenarios.

“Department of War” is a far more accurate description of what they do. Calling it the “Department of Defense” is just propaganda/political spin.

That being said, Trump’s motivation for this is idiotic and the way he’s going about it is dumb as hell, but that actually is a better name.