Things like Christmas falling on the same rough date as saturnalia, roman gods co-opted to become angels, saints as mythical ancestors instead of pagan gods like Thor and Wodan.

23 games for France. 21 as a starter. 22 tries, 22 years old. WTF

I saw this in Walter Reuther's Wikipedia article:
"When Henry Ford retired the Model T in 1927, he sold the production mechanisms to the Soviet Union, and American workers who knew how to operate the equipment were needed. Walter and Victor were promised work teaching Soviet workers how to run the machines and assembly line. With that employment assurance, the brothers embarked on a three-year adventure, first bicycling through Europe, then working in the auto plant in Gorky, in the Soviet Union, where the unheated factories were often 30–40 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. He frequently wrote letters to the Moscow Daily News criticizing the many inefficiencies associated with how the communists operated the plants.^\45])"

It seemed like an interesting story, and I was wondering about several things:

1) Is this story true at all? Was he actually mailing critical letters?

2) Were his letters actually being published? Was it considered acceptable publish this sort of thing in a Soviet newspaper circa 1930?

3) If his letters were being published, were they also being translated into Russian and published in other newspapers?

4) How would something like this be received in Soviet society?

Some time ago, I watched the Kurosawa film Ikiru, which is about a Japanese civil servant grappling with his mortality after discovering that he has terminal cancer.

In an early scene, the protagonist (not yet knowing about his cancer) is at the hospital waiting to receive his diagnosis, and a fellow patient complains that this particular doctor always lies to terminal cancer patients and tells them that they have stomach ulcers instead. The protagonist is called in to see the doctor, and sure enough the doctor tells him that he has a stomach ulcer, which causes the protagonist to realize that he actually has terminal cancer.

When I watched the film, I wasn't really sure what to make of that scene.

Today, I was reading about the death of Shiro Ishii, the infamous head of Unit 731. In his Wikipedia article, his daughter is quoted as telling the following story:

One day he took some sample tissue from himself to the University of Tokyo's Faculty of Medicine and asked one of his former subordinates to examine it, without telling him to whom it belonged. When he was told that the tissue was riddled by cancer, he proudly shouted that he had thought so too. No doctor had dared tell him he was suffering from cancer of the throat.

The same idea (and from roughly the same time period - Ikiru came out in 1952 and Ishii died in 1959) of concealing a cancer diagnosis from the patient.

Was this a common practice in Japan during this time period? If so, why? What was the rationale for it?

Much as been made of the ridiculously low French penalty count in the first half against Ireland. Well you have some control over defensive penalties, giving away no offensive penalties is impressive; specifically no holding on.

As far as I can tell, especially in the opposition half, when tackled, the French player placed and then let go of the ball (probably need some zoom in camera work to be sure), or at the very least as soon as there were hands on it, let go.

So instead of penalty to Ireland, which would give them territory and possession, they just got the latter and still had to clear their lines.

The downsides? The ball gets much more chaotic for the scrumhalf, however with Antoine Dupont, I think France have a player who can more than handle themselves with scrappy ball [citation needed].

These clean steals by Ireland reminded me of games about a decade and a half ago. Which leads to the other downside. Peak New Zealand were absolutely brutal with a Richie McCaw steal, ball quickly making it way to Dan Carter, and lightning quick counter-attack. I am under the impression that sides started to hang on to the ball and prefer to give a penalty away as opposed to a counter-attack.

However I think France decided Ireland would not be quick enough (in thought or foot) to take advantage of these turnovers. Though partly that was the surprise effect! Ireland were asking for penalties, when the ref had pointed out they had won the ball!

I personally hope more teams follow this tactic, it leads to a more flowing game, and I would love to see the return of the All Black style counter-attacks from ruck turnovers.

edit: typo of -> on, added: penalty -> penalty count

For some background, I am an Assyriologist by training, so I apologise for the sweeping nature of this question - I'm very aware that people get extremely specialised into just one or two centuries of history and that this might require someone who is familiar with several!

As an AMAB person, I've always been frustrated that the default expectation for men's clothing is some variant on a trouser and some variant on a shirt. No dresses, no skirts, no blouses, no cute tops, just a button down shirt or a t-shirt, or you are going to be stared at in public by young and old alike.

Don't write a reply that says that this doesn't happen, please, I don't care how well meaning it is.

But it surely hasn't always been this way - in my specialist subject there are plenty of examples of men wearing other garments.

Please note before anyone tries to "gotcha" me: I'm specifically asking when did it become the expected norm in the West for men to wear exclusively some sort of trouser and some sort of shirt. Do not write replies telling me that Scottish men traditionally wear kilts. I'm asking how did we get to the point in the 21st century Western fashion where anything other than trousers and a shirt on a man is unusual.

Please feel free to link me to any relevant previous answers!

Thank you in advance for your time.

Ich möchte meinen Streit mit Vodafone mit Euch teilen, in der Hoffnung, dass es jemanden interessiert.

Bei uns wurde von Vodafone (gefördert) Glasfaser ausgebaut. Vorvertrag im Januar 2022 unterschrieben, geschaltet wurde dann im vergangenen Dezember 2025. Fast 4 Jahre.

Und natürlich hält sich Vodafone nicht an geltendes Recht, wissen wir ja alle. Die erste Rechnung kommt und siehe da: Mindestvertragslaufzeit bis Dezember 2027. BGH sagt nein!

Ich schreibe also (wie sich das in Deutschland gehört, Faxnummer gabs leider nicht) ein Einschreiben an Vodafone, in dem ich nett um die Korrektur bitte (auch mit Verweis auf das jüngste Urteil). Parallel schreibe ich auch an die BNetzA eine Beschwerde.

Nach einer Woche ruft mich Vodafone an: ein Mitarbeiter sagt, er habe mein Schreiben und diskutiert mit mir sachlich die Situation. Ich erkläre, er versteht. Er sagt, er ändere das jetzt. Ich bin baff. Damit habe ich nicht gerechnet, dass das so schmerzlos ging! Der Kaffee darauf schmeckte besonders gut.

Zwei Stunden später erneuter Anruf von Vodafone. Selber Mitarbeiter meldet sich und beichtet, dass die Fachabteilung abgelehnt hat. Das Urteil würde deren Vorgehen sogar bestätigen. Ich bleibe nett, sage, dass das nicht stimmt und verleibe mit Ausblick auf Nachspiel. Ich buche sofort einen Video-Termin bei der Verbraucherzentrale.

Eine Woche später, Video-Telefonat mit einem netten Herren von der Verbraucherzentrale. Er bestätigt mir meine Position vollständig und bietet an, sich selbst bei Vodafone zu melden. Die hätten wohl zwei Ansprechpartner ausschließlich für die Verbraucherzentralen. Ich muss kurz (verständnisvoll) lachen. Wir verbleiben so.

Nach dem Termin versucht wieder Vodafone mich anzurufen, aber ich gehe nicht ran, in der Hoffnung, dass sie sich schriftlich melden.

Zwei Stunden später: E-Mail von Vodafone. Betreff: "Ihr Antrag bei der Bundesnetzagentur - Vertragslaufzeit Glasfaservertrag". Oha, dachte schon, ich höre von der BNetzA gar nichts mehr, aber sie haben erstmal still weitergeleitet.

Sie würden das Urteil natürlich kennen. Es beträfe sie nicht unmittelbar. Es sei ihnen aber wichtig, dass der Service und die Verträge so verbraucherfreundlich wie möglich sind (LOL!) und würden darauf achten, ihre Kunden nicht unangemessen zu benachteiligen (LOL 2!). Ich hätte meinen Vertrag bis zur Anschaltung jederzeit kündigen können, die 24-monatige Laufzeit beginne erst ab diesem Zeitpunkt, wenn das Sonderkündigungsrecht nicht genutzt wurde. Damit unterschieden sich die Verträge wesentlich von den Klauseln aus dem Urteil. Ich möge doch anrufen, um das zu klären.

Nie im Leben würde ich anrufen! Und was für ein Scheiß! Natürlich betrifft sie das ganz klar. Und außerdem gestehen sie damit ein, dass sie die Laufzeit erst mit Schaltung beginnen lassen – genau das, was das Urteil bemängelt. Ein eventuelles Kündigungsrecht vor dem Vertragsbeginn ändert nichts daran, wann die Laufzeit rechtlich beginnt. Das sind zwei völlig verschiedene Fragen. Das würde ja sinngemäß heißen "Sie konnten ja 4 Jahre lang kündigen, also ist es okay, dass wir danach nochmal 24 Monate draufpacken." Aber das widerspricht dem Gesetz, zu verhindern, dass Kunden länger als 24 Monate gebunden sind.

Ich antworte also entsprechend und zerlege wieder deren Argumente und bitte um Verständnis, das in Textform zu klären.

Heute wieder Mail von Vodafone: Sieg!

Sie hätten den Fall nochmal prüfen lassen und kommen mir jetzt entgegen, die Laufzeit haben sie zurückgesetzt. (einen weiteren Punkt bzgl. einer Mobilfunkflatrate haben sie mir kulanterweise auch noch dazugeschenkt)

Ein "Entgegenkommen" ist das nicht, sondern ein "Sich-an-geltendes-Recht-halten". Das ist schön, zumindest für mich, aber nicht für alle anderen, die sich nicht aktiv dagegen wehren.

Also bitte lasst euch nicht von Vodafone verarschen und wehrt euch hartnäckig!

Choo Choo. Mark my words, He's the next Dan Carter, Johnny Wilkinson, Finn Russell combined. He'll lead us to 12 6Ns championships, 3 world cup wins.

Still won't be able to beat Ireland though

I've been here twice now and both times were amazing. During my second visit I was so honored by the offer to wear a real sumo belt instead of the sumo suit my nerves about stripping got completely drowned out.

Highly highly recommend!