Jesus_666
I work at a daughter company of a bank that develops said bank’s internal software. Torn jeans are A-OK and might only get commented on when visiting the parent company. My team’s architect is virtually never seen without a Chaos Computer Club hoodie.
Earlier in my career I worked for a well-established company in the medical sector. The only person in the company who dressed up was the boss – and only when meeting someone external.
I am 35+ and I’m both companies we had older team members.
I guess the Seekers do throw rocks.
Nope, they just become less predictable. Which is why in some parts of Germany you can’t build as much as a garden shed without having EOD check the land first. In the more heavily-bombed areas it’s not unusual to hear on the radio that you’re to avoid downtown today between 10 and 12 because they’re disarming a 500-pound bomb they found during roadwork.
And yes, the fact that an unstable bomb capable of trashing a city block is mundane nicely illustrates war’s potential to fuck things up for generations.
Japan might want to get that land under and around the airport checked. There might be some other surprises hidden down there.
I typically only hear of the term “flamethrower” in a weapons context so yes, I’d say that it has to be a weapon. Yes, you can have a noncombat device that projects a flame but those are typically called something else (like “burner” or “torch”). I’d expect most people to first think of a weapon when they hear “flamethrower”.
And I would assume that your device’s flame is still controlled and directed – it may have some spread but you still choose where to point the device even when it’s active. You probably also have a means of turning the device off, offering further control. So your device fits the definition, even if it might be crude.
An incendiary grenade would be an example of a device that offers no control or direction. Once it goes off it releases all the fire everywhere within range. Another example would be a burning gas well – it might project its fire in a fairly predictable fashion and in a clear direction (up) but you can’t easily turn it off or point it somewhere else.
For me the required characteristics would be that it dispenses a burning liquid at a distance in a controlled, directed manner.
- If it dispenses burning gas it’s not very useful as a weapon and is really just a big gas burner. Roofing torches, blowtorches, and weed burners fall into this category.
- If it doesn’t cover a meaningful distance it’s also not very useful as a weapon and is essentially just a leaky container. Driptorches fall into this category.
- If it dispenses the burning material in an uncontrolled or undirected manner it’s either an incendiary bomb/grenade of some sort or an accident. It might be a weapon but not one I’d call a flamethrower.
Now, I’m not from the States so I’m not as invested in the first place but is it okay in general to be somewhat lukewarm about the American Civil War in terms of its societal effectiveness? While the slavers got beaten up very effectively (and rightly so), the aftermath was mired in compromise to such a large degree that slavery still isn’t banned in the States and the underlying racism is still a major issue today.
Is that valid criticism or should the postbellum be considered strictly separate from the Civil War? I’m genuinely curious.
(And I just realized that you argue against not taking a strong side rather than not having strong feelings. My bad.)
Or the dock randomly decides it doesn’t like one specific computer anymore and falls back to being a USB3 hub. Thunderbolt docks are really cool but I’ve had tons of reliability issues with them over the years.
I still use one but it’s been relieved from display duty because it didn’t always play nice.