-Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
-Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
To be fair. Most of the pyramids were raided far before the British took an interest and whatever they held has now been lost to time.
Eh, I meant the whole pyramids but fair enough.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Eurotrash gonna eurotrash.
There are occasions when it’s useful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_the_Islamic_State
I’m not saying it always is but there are a lot of very unstable places run by people who just don’t care about this stuff. And at the time it was stolen it was either the British museum, someone’s private collection, or the Vatican.
But who made them unstable?
Well, in the case of Syria, decades of oppression under the Assad family combined with religious ideology.
Supported byyyyyyy……
i need someone to convince me why it is wrong to steal from the British museum gift shop
Will you display for free all your stolen giftshop loot for everyone to see, and promise never to damage it, sell it or dispose of it in any way.
I’ll showcase it to people I allow on my house, and say I take care of it, but what if I put then in ebay? who is going to stop me
If you are comparing stealing from the giftshop to the museum’s procurement process then you have to display your loot in an equal (free) manner to all members of the public, and refuse sell any items.
Is it free to the public?
People in Africa/asia, have to get a visa, and spend thousands (if they manage to be super cheap might only be a few hundred) of pounds to see their own historical artifacts, and keep in mind most of the artifacts are not in display, and it is the British curators who decide what is displayed, and what will likely end up in ebay.
IE: my metaphor is correct
but I’ll tell everyone I’m more responsible than those brown/people and that’s why I get to keep them
You don’t have to pay for people’s transport if they come to see your giftshop loot, but you do have to show it them for free.
No. Selling on eBay is not allowed. In fact, once you have started your collection you are expected to pay for all future additions to your collection (although you may get donations).
Your shoplifting metaphor ignored the curation, storage and display responsibilities. It also assumed resale which, in the British Museum’s case, hasn’t occurred.
I still get to control who gets in (visa)
i see the problem, you’re assuming I’m the British museum in the metaphor, but I’m more like the UK in the metaphor.
And there are plenty of artifacts from the museum that ended up in ebay, but don’t worry, the museum promised they will investigate themselves whenever it happens.
Why is a foreign entity, gets to decide what to do with stolen artifacts?
could I rob a bank, and when they catch me I can blame the bank for low security,.and not have to return anything because I will allow some people to come to my house and show them some bank stationary I also stole? while keeping the money for myself and do with it as I please. while pinky promising to not use the money I stole, but there’s no oversight or consequences if I don’t.
I still get to control who gets in (visa)
You don’t control country visas. Neither does the British Museum.
i see the problem, you’re assuming I’m the British museum in the metaphor, but I’m more like the UK in the metaphor.
Ah OK. Then I’m confused what the “UK giftshop” represents, and also what are you stealing from it.
Why is a foreign entity, gets to decide what to do with stolen artifacts?
A good, but different question. We are straying from the question of being morally able to steal from the British Museum giftshop.
could I rob a bank, and when they catch me I can blame the bank for low security,.and not have to return anything because I will allow some people to come to my house and show them some bank stationary I also stole?
The standard response is that you are a white hat bank robber, and you will return the bank assets once they beef up security. But the Greek bank has done this and still doesn’t have it’s assets back.
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?
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
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!
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
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.
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.
Where do you get that he hired them?
The opening scene is them discussing that the tribe would kill them just for being in the area, and then Belloq taunts Jones saying he can’t warn them that he’s scamming them because Jones doesn’t speak Hovitos. No where does it say he hired them.
Scamming them is even worse, no?
He didn’t know Belloq was there until after he had robbed them.
So the entire point of my original comment was to give Indiana Jones a bit of vindication from the thinly veiled slander that he was nothing more than a tomb robber working for the colonialist west. How does your correction that Belloq was scamming the Hovitos, not paying them, make any difference to Jones’s character?
It doesn’t. You said Belloq hired them to be his personal army, which paints the Hovitos as complicit in working against their own self-interests. As in, they were the betrayers of their own people and were selling out to Belloq for some cash.
But no, the reality is both Jones and Belloq were out to screw them: Jones by directly robbing them, and Belloq by first scamming them and then robbing them. Both were being imperialist and the Hovitos were the victims.
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.
Marion, this is a movie made in the 1980s and set in the 1930s, what the hell are you even talking about?
“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!
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
Why are there pyramids in egypt?
Because they were too big for the british museum.
Well I’m British so… fuuuck that!
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
Britannia Jones and the stolen museum artifacts.
Laughs in British
if you want to compare Indiana Jones to real life, the movies say flat out that he is an unscrupulous grave robber and he is completely aware of the hypocrisy. its part of his character arc, where he’s all about fortune and glory and doesnt believe in any of the mystical crap, until he is confronted with powers he didn’t understand and fights to stop others from exploiting them. and at the end of the day it was a movie
Forgot the zoom on the bottom panels.
