Official Random Fact/Random Thought Thread!
- Thread starter Knotorious
- Start date
- Replies 566
- Views 16K
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #552
Random Fact: Was Jesse Owens, the African American athlete from the US who won four gold medals during the 1936 Olympics in Germany snubbed by Hitler after his wins due to his race? Not according to Owens. Have a read and find out who Owens claims truly snubbed him...
"It is true that Hitler did not shake hands with Owens. In fact, he did not congratulate any gold medalists after the first day of competition on August 2, 1936. On the first day, Hitler met and shook hands with all the German gold medalists. (He also shook hands with a few Finnish athletes.) That night, Hitler left the stadium before African American high jumper Cornelius Johnson won his first gold medal; Hitler’s staff maintained that he had a pre-scheduled appointment. Hitler was reprimanded, and the head of the IOC, Henri de Baillet-Latour, told him that he could either congratulate all the gold medalists or none. Hitler chose to honor no one.
The next day—August 3, 1936—Owens won his first gold medal in the 100-meter dash. Hitler did not meet or shake hands with Owens. That said, there are several reports of a salute or wave. According to sports reporter and author Paul Gallico, writing from Berlin, Owens was “led below the honor box, where he smiled and bowed, and Herr Hitler gave him a friendly little Nazi salute, the sitting down one with the arm bent.” Owens himself later confirmed this, claiming that they exchanged congratulatory waves.
So, Owens was not personally snubbed by Hitler. However, Owens did feel that he had been snubbed by someone: U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. A month after the Olympic Games, Owens told a crowd, “Hitler didn’t snub me—it was [Roosevelt] who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.” Roosevelt never publicly acknowledged Owens’s triumphs—or the triumphs of any of the 18 African Americans who competed at the Berlin Olympics. Only white Olympians were invited to the White House in 1936. A number of explanations have been offered for the president’s actions. Most likely, Roosevelt did not want to risk losing the support of Southern Democrats by appearing overly soft on the race issue. The Black Olympians who competed in Berlin were not recognized by the White House until 2016, when Pres. Barack Obama invited the athletes’ relatives to an event in celebration of their lives and accomplishments."
SOURCE: Was Jesse Owens Snubbed by Adolf Hitler at the Berlin Olympics? - https://www.britannica.com/story/was-jesse-owens-snubbed-by-adolf-hitler-at-the-berlin-olympics#:~:text=Hitler%20was%20reprimanded%2C%20and%20the,or%20shake%20hands%20with%20Owens.
"It is true that Hitler did not shake hands with Owens. In fact, he did not congratulate any gold medalists after the first day of competition on August 2, 1936. On the first day, Hitler met and shook hands with all the German gold medalists. (He also shook hands with a few Finnish athletes.) That night, Hitler left the stadium before African American high jumper Cornelius Johnson won his first gold medal; Hitler’s staff maintained that he had a pre-scheduled appointment. Hitler was reprimanded, and the head of the IOC, Henri de Baillet-Latour, told him that he could either congratulate all the gold medalists or none. Hitler chose to honor no one.
The next day—August 3, 1936—Owens won his first gold medal in the 100-meter dash. Hitler did not meet or shake hands with Owens. That said, there are several reports of a salute or wave. According to sports reporter and author Paul Gallico, writing from Berlin, Owens was “led below the honor box, where he smiled and bowed, and Herr Hitler gave him a friendly little Nazi salute, the sitting down one with the arm bent.” Owens himself later confirmed this, claiming that they exchanged congratulatory waves.
So, Owens was not personally snubbed by Hitler. However, Owens did feel that he had been snubbed by someone: U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. A month after the Olympic Games, Owens told a crowd, “Hitler didn’t snub me—it was [Roosevelt] who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.” Roosevelt never publicly acknowledged Owens’s triumphs—or the triumphs of any of the 18 African Americans who competed at the Berlin Olympics. Only white Olympians were invited to the White House in 1936. A number of explanations have been offered for the president’s actions. Most likely, Roosevelt did not want to risk losing the support of Southern Democrats by appearing overly soft on the race issue. The Black Olympians who competed in Berlin were not recognized by the White House until 2016, when Pres. Barack Obama invited the athletes’ relatives to an event in celebration of their lives and accomplishments."
SOURCE: Was Jesse Owens Snubbed by Adolf Hitler at the Berlin Olympics? - https://www.britannica.com/story/was-jesse-owens-snubbed-by-adolf-hitler-at-the-berlin-olympics#:~:text=Hitler%20was%20reprimanded%2C%20and%20the,or%20shake%20hands%20with%20Owens.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #553
Random Fact: Ever measure one of your ropes (especially new or newer ropes) using a pair of calipers and notice that the diameter is more than what the manufacturer stated? Here's some fun and interesting information regarding what the EN standards have to say about these discrepancies...
According to EN 12385-4, the tolerance range for measuring the diameter of a rope under tension is between -0% and +5% of the nominal diameter for ropes with a nominal diameter of 8 mm or more. For smaller ropes, the tolerance range is usually higher.
For example, ropes with a nominal diameter of 3–7 mm may have a higher tolerance range. The diameter tolerance is usually specified as a percentage of the nominal diameter. For example, if a rope has a nominal diameter of 28 mm and a tolerance of +2% to +5%, then the measured diameter could be between 28.56 mm and 29.12 mm.
***In critical cases, it's recommended to measure the effective diameter of a rope while it's loaded with 5% of its calculated breaking strength."***
Why am I mentioning this (other than the fact that it's awesome and interesting information)? I was just watching the latest video by Ryan Jenks from HowNOT2 and, as he often does, he can be seen measuring a variety of ropes using calipers and showing how many of them are several tenths of a millimeter off in diameter.
He was doing this because, in the video, he was testing this new rescue device on various rope sizes in order to measure the amount of force required to make the device slip. And I thought to myself, "that's kind of pointless because that isn't the proper way to measure a rope's diameter."
Here's that video for anyone who wants to see what I'm talking about...
According to EN 12385-4, the tolerance range for measuring the diameter of a rope under tension is between -0% and +5% of the nominal diameter for ropes with a nominal diameter of 8 mm or more. For smaller ropes, the tolerance range is usually higher.
For example, ropes with a nominal diameter of 3–7 mm may have a higher tolerance range. The diameter tolerance is usually specified as a percentage of the nominal diameter. For example, if a rope has a nominal diameter of 28 mm and a tolerance of +2% to +5%, then the measured diameter could be between 28.56 mm and 29.12 mm.
***In critical cases, it's recommended to measure the effective diameter of a rope while it's loaded with 5% of its calculated breaking strength."***
Why am I mentioning this (other than the fact that it's awesome and interesting information)? I was just watching the latest video by Ryan Jenks from HowNOT2 and, as he often does, he can be seen measuring a variety of ropes using calipers and showing how many of them are several tenths of a millimeter off in diameter.
He was doing this because, in the video, he was testing this new rescue device on various rope sizes in order to measure the amount of force required to make the device slip. And I thought to myself, "that's kind of pointless because that isn't the proper way to measure a rope's diameter."
Here's that video for anyone who wants to see what I'm talking about...
Last edited:
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #554
Random Fact: On average, one day of a dog's life is the equivalent of a full week for a human.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #555
Random Fact: You know how when you're preparing a steak and see some of the blood? Or when you're cutting into a cooked steak and see some blood?
*record scratch*
It's not blood, you silly goose! The red fluid that comes out of meat is not blood, but rather a protein called myoglobin mixed with water. Most of the blood is removed from meat during slaughter, and only 2–9 ml/kg of residual blood remains in lean meat, which is effectively undetectable.
*record scratch*
It's not blood, you silly goose! The red fluid that comes out of meat is not blood, but rather a protein called myoglobin mixed with water. Most of the blood is removed from meat during slaughter, and only 2–9 ml/kg of residual blood remains in lean meat, which is effectively undetectable.
Nutball
TreeHouser
I've always wondered how they drain the blood without some pooling in low areas.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #557
I always think it's pretty funny when a vegan tells me that we should stop eating meat (for a variety of different reasons; but I'm only going to discuss one at the moment) and how we need to completely stop "senselessly killing" sentient beings. They seem to think that if we only eat and farm vegetables and grains, etc. that the world will be a better place and our health will improve; and that animals will no longer get "mutilated and tortured for no reason."
Random Fact: On the major farms for vegetables and grains, etc. throughout the world, they have made a huge transition from man-operated farming equipment to ones which are fully automated and GPS guided; and these sophisticated machines which harvest the crops from the soil so that they can be further processed are run at maximum speed so that these farms can gather as much crop per diem as possible. This means that, on a regular basis, small animals that have taken shelter among the crops, or who are feeding off of the crops, often get chased down and killed by these machines.
Animals such as frogs, rabbits, mice, birds, squirrels, etc. get sucked into the harvesters, are brutally mutilated, killed and mixed with the crop. Because of this, one of the steps involved in grain and vegetable production is to filter out all of the dead animals before continuing on to further refine the crop. And if the animal has been mutilated badly enough, or if the animal is small and cut in half (like a frog or a mouse), it will pass through these filters, get ground up, and are further processed with the desired finished product; get packed, get sent out for wholesale, for retail, and end up on your plate/in your bowl, and into your digestive tract. If you eat grains, especially, and if you're a vegan, I can guarantee that you've eaten some animals recently.
Additionally, did you know that many grain and vegetable farms have snipers that they pay to stealthily guard their farms at night from larger animals, such as pigs, deer, boar, etc. that would devastate their crops if they left them alone? These snipers drive around, fully equipped with night vision goggles and night vision scopes, and shoot these animals on site. If you think that's the worst part, it's not. The worst part is that all of that meat from all of those dead animals is almost always thrown out. I saw a video the other day of these snipers at work, and at one point they saw a grown mother pig and, running alongside her were about 10 little piglets. This guy takes the safety off of this big machine gun that they had mounted to the bed of their truck and unleashes lead onto all of them. It was difficult to watch.
So, if you think being vegan means that animals aren't going to be "senselessly killed" and wasted, you aren't doing your research. There are many other examples for why worldwide veganism would do nothing to stop the killing of animals, but these two aforementioned examples are two of the best.
Random Fact: On the major farms for vegetables and grains, etc. throughout the world, they have made a huge transition from man-operated farming equipment to ones which are fully automated and GPS guided; and these sophisticated machines which harvest the crops from the soil so that they can be further processed are run at maximum speed so that these farms can gather as much crop per diem as possible. This means that, on a regular basis, small animals that have taken shelter among the crops, or who are feeding off of the crops, often get chased down and killed by these machines.
Animals such as frogs, rabbits, mice, birds, squirrels, etc. get sucked into the harvesters, are brutally mutilated, killed and mixed with the crop. Because of this, one of the steps involved in grain and vegetable production is to filter out all of the dead animals before continuing on to further refine the crop. And if the animal has been mutilated badly enough, or if the animal is small and cut in half (like a frog or a mouse), it will pass through these filters, get ground up, and are further processed with the desired finished product; get packed, get sent out for wholesale, for retail, and end up on your plate/in your bowl, and into your digestive tract. If you eat grains, especially, and if you're a vegan, I can guarantee that you've eaten some animals recently.
Additionally, did you know that many grain and vegetable farms have snipers that they pay to stealthily guard their farms at night from larger animals, such as pigs, deer, boar, etc. that would devastate their crops if they left them alone? These snipers drive around, fully equipped with night vision goggles and night vision scopes, and shoot these animals on site. If you think that's the worst part, it's not. The worst part is that all of that meat from all of those dead animals is almost always thrown out. I saw a video the other day of these snipers at work, and at one point they saw a grown mother pig and, running alongside her were about 10 little piglets. This guy takes the safety off of this big machine gun that they had mounted to the bed of their truck and unleashes lead onto all of them. It was difficult to watch.
So, if you think being vegan means that animals aren't going to be "senselessly killed" and wasted, you aren't doing your research. There are many other examples for why worldwide veganism would do nothing to stop the killing of animals, but these two aforementioned examples are two of the best.
Nutball
TreeHouser
Pigs are one thing, but many other animals are either fenced out or suffered with. Nearby me I often see deer grazing newly planted rekatively small crop fields, and nobody seems to care.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #559
I'm not saying we shouldn't end all animal cruelty. We must and we should. I love animals more than humans. My point is simply that veganism isn't the answer to saving all of the innocent animals and that some vegan foods contain animal parts.
That's the problem with people. If a solution doesn't fix 100% of the problems, and do it cheaper, it's valueless. You could count the '100% solutions' on one hand. Most are fractional and iterative. Veganism is the answer to make things better, and things should always be better. Perfect is irrelevant.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #561
I wasn't trying to suggest that veganism has to be a "100% perfect solution." I'm intelligent enough to know that nothing in life is perfect. Something has to die in order for us to live and eating meat is not unhealthy like many claim. Sure, perhaps processed meats like salami and sausage aren't as good for you, but they certainly aren't so unhealthy that we should omit them from our diet. Just keep it in moderation.
Also, most meat "substitutes" are a complete joke. The protein from plants doesn't get processed nearly as readily as the protein from actual meat and have you ever read the ingredients list on the package for a meat substitute? They always have around 20 different highly processed ingredients and somehow vegans think that's healthier than eating meat, which is one, singular, healthy ingredient? I'm very confused by that.
What's even more confusing is how they are trying make products that look and taste exactly like meat, even adding ingredients like beat juice to imitate the myoglobin, despite being adamantly against meat. Also, the major meat substitute producers work with companies like Pizza Hut, Burger King, MacDonalds and various other major corporations that use tons of meat in their offerings simply so they can have their substitute sell at those locations and make money. They don't seem to care that they are supporting the "enemy."
I'm just politely debating here, @lxskllr. I have nothing against vegans. People can do and eat whatever the f*ck they want. It's really none of my business what anyone does with their life nor their body. But, naturally, just like every other person on this planet, I have some opinions.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #562
Random Fact: 80% of people who go onto a vegan diet will give up that diet and go back to eating meat.
Random Fact: 80% of all of the world's cows live in India and they don't even eat cow. They are religious symbols.
Random Fact: 80% of all of the world's cows live in India and they don't even eat cow. They are religious symbols.
Cobleskill
Treehouser
I'm not buying the India cow number.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #564
I'm sorry. I was on autopilot and typed the same number as the above statistic by accident. It's 33%. Good catch. Thanks.
As of 2023, India has roughly 33% of the world's cattle, or 307.5 million head. This makes India the country with the world's largest dairy herd, which includes cows and buffaloes. The Indian government prioritizes the livestock sector as a way to improve food security and nutrition, and to alleviate poverty.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #565
I was also mistaken about the "they don't even eat cow" aspect. I really botched that fact up. Some Indians do eat beef.
Beef is eaten in India by millions of people, including Dalits, Muslims, and Christians. According to government data, around 80 million Indians eat beef, including more than 12 million Hindus. Beef is also a popular dish in the southern state of Kerala, where it has been eaten for 2,000 years.
Beef is eaten in India by millions of people, including Dalits, Muslims, and Christians. According to government data, around 80 million Indians eat beef, including more than 12 million Hindus. Beef is also a popular dish in the southern state of Kerala, where it has been eaten for 2,000 years.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #566
This is proof that you should never take a fact from one source and consider it verified.
Knotorious
That Guy With The Face
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #567
Quick Clarification: I fully respect anyone who doesn't eat meat because they refuse to support any animal cruelty. I completely respect and admire that. My issue with veganism is mostly the nutritional "arguments" that claim having meat in your diet, along with vegetables and grains, etc., is somehow less healthy than a diet that consists of no meat; just grains, vegetables, and supplements, etc.
As far as I can tell, people who actually think beef is something we need to omit from our diets for nutritional reasons are pretty fringe. But that's really where my criticisms lie. Again, I support anyone who does anything to help prevent or deter animal cruelty and those are the vegans I can truly appreciate; even though I would never give up meat myself.
Okay, I'm done rambling about this topic now. Carry on.
As far as I can tell, people who actually think beef is something we need to omit from our diets for nutritional reasons are pretty fringe. But that's really where my criticisms lie. Again, I support anyone who does anything to help prevent or deter animal cruelty and those are the vegans I can truly appreciate; even though I would never give up meat myself.
Okay, I'm done rambling about this topic now. Carry on.
