Gonna play a game of comment roulette. How far do I have to scroll before I see someone say something like, “That can’t be in their museum because they can’t be trusted with it”.
Spinning the chamber now.
Edit: turns out I wasn’t prepared for what I saw. Now I sad.
on the other hand how often things go missing in the British museum?
The museum could pay rent per item to the country the artifacts originate from? Bad idea?
It should belong to the country of origin, but it could also be shared and tour around museums across the globe so an even greater number of people can check it out. They do this with art pieces. Why not cultural artifacts, too? Is not everyone entitled to learning about anything, including someone else’s culture?
i need someone to convince me why it is wrong to steal from the British museum gift shop
better a museum than on a shelf in someone’s living room (no I won’t be donating it)
They are my human skulls I found them fair and square
Marion, this is a movie made in the 1980s and set in the 1930s, what the hell are you even talking about?
That attitude gets retconed in the great circle.
where he explicitly says that it belongs in a museum and helps locals get their relics to keep safe in their museums. ie, it belongs in their museums.
good game overall
“I liked you better when you were a child I was grooming!”
Marion, you knew when you met me that I came from the mind of George Lucas. It’s not my fault I’m a little fucked up!
Well I’m British so… fuuuck that!
Britannia Jones and the stolen museum artifacts.
What’s the opinion on certain high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed? If I remember correctly ISIS and other similar organizations have burned or bombed several historical sites before.
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
“It’s safer with us” is an excuse that’s been abused by colonizers and raiders for too long.
deleted by creator
If you’re suggesting a daring heist at the Smithsonian, I’m in!
Museums should participate in cultural exchange, if a museum feels under threat then they have channels they can trust to protect their artifacts until they can be returned
We have to be extremely wary of people who cite that because it’s so easily used as a justification for artifact theft and can have deep roots in racism.
That’s the question. Where is the line between racism and artifact protection?
Presumably somewhere between racism and artifact protection.
Much like the theft of historical artifacts by the UK et al, ISIS was the result of decades of imperialist meddling by the US. Maybe just leave things be and let the locals work out what they want to do with their land, their people, and the artifacts on it. Offering assistance without strings attached is good, interventions are bad.
It’s like offering to help your neighbor with their yard: it’s acceptable to offer to lend them your mower, but it’s not acceptable to dig up everything on their property, replace it with grass sod, and spray it regularly with herbicides because you didn’t like the look of their local fauna and are afraid the dandelions and clover would spread to your lawn after your first intervention.
Who do you recognize as the authority to make that decision though? If the locals are currently ruled by a terrorist group or Nazis or whatever, do they get to decide? What about the locals that disagree with the government currently in power?
And an answer of ‘if we just didn’t needlessly meddle’ might be the ideal, but it’s ignoring the realities that we have meddled and some countries are unlikely to stop doing so. We have to accept the world we have not the one we wished we had.
ISIS works for usa, so, the answer is kill all yanks
Adults have the right to make their own mistakes?
At the expense of everyone else?
-Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
-Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
Imagine doing a Gate of Ishtar maneuver but with the pyramids
It’s not quite the same thing (particularly because of the motivation), but, uhh…I suggest you read about Abu Simbel, if you haven’t already.
how to write lists
- Why there are pyramids in Egypt? - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.renders to
- Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
- Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
Markdown guide is in the toolbar (?⃝) alongside a button for lists.
Edit: Disregard. They were trying to do quotation dashes.
Well, that’s the reason why I didn’t write it like that. I wanted it to look like a dash, just like in novels.
By the way, Markdown also takes escape
\, which is why sometimes the shrugging emoticon is missing left arm.- So this
- also works with spaceSo you don’t even necessarily have to leave out the space.
Apparently there is already a separate symbol for speech dash, which is —. However its keyboard shortcut is obscure and I couldn’t remember it later, but Markdown already covered this it seems. Writing
renders as —, which I’ll do from now on, if I don’t forget about it next time.
So breaking accessibility for the heck of it? How forward-thinking.
How is it breaking accessibility?
Good question: for basic accessibility, structure should be conveyed, which adds
when technologies support programmatic relationships, it is strongly encouraged that information and relationships be programmatically determined
The web supports programmatic relationships through correct markup, so the technique using semantic elements to mark up structure applies, specifically by using ol, ul and dl for lists or groups of links or the markdown equivalent.
If you want to experience this yourself, then put on a blindfold, use a screenreader & compare your “list” to mine.
It doesn’t look like a list to me, but a riddle.
Would putting a Q: and A: in front of them satisfy you or would that send you off on a different tangent of chastising web users on their formatting?
Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech, the tech should get better at interpreting human tendencies of writing. Even today I can write in a non-structured natural language form and a decent chat bot can typically make a reasonable interpretation of it without help.
It doesn’t look like a list to me
Then the
-weren’t needed.Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech
- Nah, writing a space the conventional way suffices:
-SPACE list item. Even aesthetically, the plain text looks atrocious without a space there & worse when rendered. - The technology is fine, there was even a button in the toolbar. It’s not that hard to figure out to anyone trying: there’s a preview button & they can edit.
All anyone has to do is (1) follow regular convention or (2) use the technology. Getting this wrong despite the technology & standard convention is less a technology problem & more a user problem.
- Nah, writing a space the conventional way suffices:
I don’t have a screen reader installed so I cannot try it but I can guess how it can screw with it. However I agree with Monkey With A Shell here. It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics, this can only be solved with a better software.
While I use markdown daily, apparently there are still things I don’t know about it. Well, I mostly learn them when I need them but still. So, I could use
—(speech dash) instead of-, which I assume wouldn’t cause a problem with a screen reader. There is no way for me to remember its shortcut on the keyboard, but it seems Markdown already covered this withwhich ends up rendered as—.Thanks for making me noticing about it, learned something new today.
It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics
Not realistic for users to write lists the normal way that doesn’t look wrong? I don’t know guys
-first -second -thirdlooks obviously bad whereas
- first - second - thirdlooks right. Then you see the rendered result in preview. You also had a button in the toolbar to create a list.
I don’t think this is asking much.
If you weren’t trying to write a list, though, then I don’t know what you were doing & I doubt a chat bot will either: could you link to an example of what you were trying to do? For all you know, I’m a chat bot not figuring out your intent. No technology is about to fix PEBKAC.
I think the bottom line is if you write lists normally, then everything else including accessibility will turn out right without you needing to understand the intricacies.
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept created during the peace treaty of Westphalia.
Those relics belong to dead people.
Attributing modern concepts of borders to Westphalia is a Eurocentric worldview. What, you don’t think they had the concept of statehood and sovereignty in Asia for at least a few thousand years prior to this?
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept created during the peace treaty of Westphalia.
Stealing this foolproof argument for when I next apply for a UK visa to go to British Museum. Thanks!
Hot take: all artifacts should be located in the most geopolitically stable area possible
Hotter take: un peacekeepers should protect world heritage sites with weapons-free orders
Gotta love how the first movie opens with him stealing an idol from an uncontacted Peruvian tribe, and the heroic music swells as he narrowly escapes with spears flying around them.
Granted, this takes place in 1936 and his actions were the norm for the period, but despite coming out in 1981 the movie plays this scene out rather uncritically.
Yeah, but if the tribe made those traps that still work perfectly after hundreds of years, imagine how advanced they must be by now. Dr Jones was probably within miles of a hidden techno utopia and never had a clue.
He narrowly escapes with his life after having the idol stolen from him by his rival, Belloq, who works for the Nazis and actually hired that Peruvian tribe to be his little private army. Belloq then orders the Peruvians to attack Jones and he barely escapes on his hired plane.
Temple of Doom had way more questionable scenes in it with the banquet, the heroic British soldiers at the end and… Short Round. Did they really have to name him that?
Although the cultists were based on a real group and I actually saw something that looked like the heart thing in an Indian movie, so maybe that’s based on something real as well.
scandalized stare
edit *innocent stare I meant
Karen Allen, the perfect example of aging naturally and radiating beauty.
Petite brunette women with green eyes have always been my thing. I realised recently that is entirely due to Karen Allen.
She isn’t even specifically my type, but her smile in this Indy 4 promo foto
was just absolutely captivating
Forgot the zoom on the bottom panels.
