Or they just have different connotations here. Would it be acceptable for a man to go up to a woman he's never met before and say "I'm in love with you" while she's just doing her job? If you say yes, I have to wonder who of us was really raised wrong.
All of these, maybe with the exception of duck and gaffer, if said in North America would be either not seen as gender neutral, or would be especially creepy if a man used it.
I said this at launch, you cannot do early access with an established IP. The agreement is a reduced price because you're paying to get in on the ground floor before it actually gets good. But for an established IP you've already built your audience, so most people are going to buy on day 1 at the reduced price, so the "reduced price" has to basically be full price. Now you're paying full price for an unfinished game because Take Two pushed them to release an unfinished game that had been delayed by years.
I don't think you could sustain an electric ship with solar panels, but I wonder if you could appreciably extend the range of this ship by adding solar panels.
Hell, if panels get cheap enough you could slap panels on top of all the battery modules. If they happen to be covered by something else, so be it.
calling it a "linguistics misunderstanding" makes it seem more scientific than it probably is. I'd like to see some evidence to back it up, because to me it just looks like some Tumblr user's conjecture.
It's less the result of a sensible system of units (like how 1 L of water ideally weighs 1 kg), and more fortunate happenstance in this case.
The formula for hydrostatic pressure* is:
∆P= ρ·g·∆h
where ∆P is the difference in pressure across the difference in height ∆h, ρ is the density of the liquid (~1000 kg/m³ for water, slightly more for sea water), and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
So the reason it works out nicely is because g is a little bit less than a nice factor of ten (9.8 m/s²), and the density of sea water is a little bit more than a nice factor of ten (typically 1025 kg/m³), and 1 atm also happens to be almost a nice factor of ten (101,325 Pa). That's why the difference between the approximation and the actual* is less than a percent.
*This assumes a constant density of the liquid, which for water is reasonable, however different depths can have different salinities and temperatures in layers which change the density by less than a percent. Additionally, this assumes a constant acceleration due to gravity. At depth, the acceleration due to gravity can be higher, but this also has an effect that amounts to less than a percent even at the deepest point in the ocean.
Article 5 specifies that the attack itself must occur in Europe or North America.
I reality, i doubt anyone at NATO would really care about that technicality, but another user pointed out the Canadian embassy hadn't seen use in 12 years or something like that
Man unable to comprehend that words can have different meanings in different countries, and is unable to understand analogy, more at 11