Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

twistedsifter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#271

Post by benj111 »

comfypotato wrote: post #264
benj111 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perfect summation of the differences between USians and British. You want a BATTLEFIELD wall. I want a Crinkle Crankle

This is because you lost the Revolution.

Why is it referred to as a revolution? A revolution tends to refer to the overthrow of a govt within a single nations border, whereas one country splitting from another tends to be referred to independence.

I don't really see the cause and effect either. Surely the USs love of FORTRESS walls would be a reason they won?

Anyway, you say lost. I say we got rid of the tea wasters. Sounds like a win to me.

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#272

Post by dang »

benj111 wrote: post #258
NavinF wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather have a Battlefield Wall on my property in the US than a Ribbon Wall or Crinkle Crankle Wall. The latter two sound ridiculous. I really like "Serpentine Wall", but it sounds a little too technical for everyday conversation with nontechnical people

This is a perfect summation of the differences between USians and British. You want a BATTLEFIELD wall. I want a Crinkle Crankle

Please avoid nationalistic flamebait on HN. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which we're eager to avoid - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I realize some of this is lighthearted banter but sadly Mr. Internet can't really do that for very long.

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#273

Post by benj111 »

dang wrote: post #272
benj111 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perfect summation of the differences between USians and British. You want a BATTLEFIELD wall. I want a Crinkle Crankle

Please avoid nationalistic flamebait on HN. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which we're eager to avoid - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . I realize some of this is lighthearted banter but sadly Mr. Internet can't really do that for very long.

I wouldn't say it's flame bait.

It just seemed to me a very good example of '2 nations divided by a common language'

But I'm more a celebrate the differences kind of guy.

But point taken about the internet being the internet.

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#274

Post by dang »

benj111 wrote: post #273
dang wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please avoid nationalistic flamebait on HN. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which we're eager to avoid - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . I realize some of this is lighthearted banter but sadly Mr. Internet can't really do that for very long.

I wouldn't say it's flame bait. It just seemed to me a very good example of '2 nations divided by a common language' But I'm more a celebrate the differences kind of guy. But point taken about the internet being the internet.

As the janitor who has to put out these fires (mixed metaphor, but accurate) I promise you it's flamebait. That's a question of statistical outcomes, not personal taste.

It would be nice if it were otherwise but for that you need a much smaller and more cohesive group. Large internet forums can't work that way - the long tail is too big, and there's always a supply of triggerable commenters.

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#275

Post by jon_adler »

em-bee wrote: post #68
NeoTar wrote: post #56

"Popularized in England" - maybe popularized, but such walls are by no means popular or common. "The county of Suffolk seems to be home to countless examples of these crinkle crankle walls. On freston.net you can find 100 wavy walls that have been documented and photographed." Although it's not explicitly said, let's suppose that every one of those wavy walls is in Suffolk. The population of the county is 761 350 - l…

So only roughly one-in-one-thousand homes in Suffolk has such a 'wavy wall' yes, but you also need to take into account how many homes have any brick wall at all.

Anecdotally, I would say that flint stone walls are more common than wavy walls. I’ve see plenty of the former and none of the latter wham driving through the county.

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#276

Post by em-bee »

jon_adler wrote: post #275
em-bee wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So only roughly one-in-one-thousand homes in Suffolk has such a 'wavy wall' yes, but you also need to take into account how many homes have any brick wall at all.

Anecdotally, I would say that flint stone walls are more common than wavy walls. I’ve see plenty of the former and none of the latter wham driving through the county.

that's not surprising. even without ever having been there i am aware of some areas of the british isles having a reputation for stone walls. but not for brick walls. which makes the question of the popularity of wavy brick walls even more interesting. how many non-wavy brick walls are there?

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#277

Post by throwaway894345 »

deaddodo wrote: post #270
throwaway894345 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. "Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall" is so misleading it may as well be a lie. Enjoy your day.

Yeah yeah, we got it. You're ignorant and stubborn.

Hah, what a strange thing to attack someone over. I’m not sure who “we” is, but I hope you can all move on from this.

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#278

Post by jerry1979 »

WorldMaker wrote: post #177
jerry1979 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Christian Science Monitor is perfectly fine. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/christian-science-monitor/

The religious group that funds it has a questionable relationship to science including and despite "Science" being in its name. (It was started as a 19th Century anti-hospital group. We'd consider them "proto-anti-vax" in today's concerns and terminology.) They may be unbiased in reporting the news, generally, but there's still concerns about their relationship to reporting science given their name and the known beli…

> there's still concerns about their relationship to reporting science

Can you provide any credible examples of concerns regarding their reporting on science topics?

Post reply on HN