Jan 2
i am to become the Goddess of Standardisation. for my first trick i’ll obliterate all knowledge of imperial measures from the minds of mortals and replace it with perfect fluency in metric
Loading...
seen from France
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Yemen
seen from Ukraine
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from Japan
seen from Türkiye
seen from France
seen from France
seen from France
i am to become the Goddess of Standardisation. for my first trick i’ll obliterate all knowledge of imperial measures from the minds of mortals and replace it with perfect fluency in metric
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Irish, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic speakers, I need your help! 🇮🇪🏴🏴
For a piece of academic writing I am working on right now, I was wondering if in the context of those three languages, you have positive or negative examples of:
1) The presence of non-standard dialects digitally or in the media (any content creator you know, any regular speakers on the radio that actively uses a non-standard dialect, or on the contrary, you only encounter standard Irish/Welsh/Gaelic. If you have any example of non-standard writing too, for example in the printed press, I am all ears)
2) Do you speak and/or write a non-standard dialect and have been looked down upon for it by other speakers? If yes what dialect and in what context
3) What do you think about purification practices in which loan-words from English are replaced by new words? Which words do you use? If you study the language formally, which are taught to you?
Thank you, and please reblog!
- A grateful Celtic student
I don’t want to sit standardised tests with applied question, evaluating things written fifty years ago. I want to sit in rooms and make notes about the past, the present and the future and gracefully inhale the knowledge.
At the beginning of the century, a college education was seen as a bauble for the rich, a finishing school for children of the upper class or a place where the youth of the nouveau riche could mingle with the upper class and acquire social graces and upward social mobility. (Upward economic mobility was not the issue for families that could afford to send their children to college.) A college education, which filled the minds of its students with esoteric knowledge and unrealistic theories, was looked on unfavorably by employers in such practical fields as journalism or engineering. But as the century got older, gradually college became seen as the means by which citizens could become above average, and it was regarded as unfair that this opportunity should be available only to the rich. By the Sixties, the construction of new colleges and a variety of scholarship programs (most notably the GI Bill) had resulted in a large mass of new college graduates. Discouragingly enough, though, many of these new graduates turned out to be only average after all. It was then realized that we had underestimated what would be required to raise a person above the norm. For many, at least a Masters degree would be essential. Therefore money was poured into creating new graduate programs and expanding existing ones, and creating new graduate fellowships, such as those established by the National Defense Education Act. But by the end of the Sixties, it was becoming apparent that even a graduate degree was not adequate to make someone above average. It became common to find PhDs driving taxi-cabs and painting houses. Going to college has become the normal rite of passage for a moderately intelligent middle-class youth. Anyone who has the ability and the desire can now become educated, but the American dream of having a standard formula that any person can follow to become successful and above average is still unfulfilled.
Lee Lady
STANDARDISATION BONUS ROUND: 🏴ENGLAND
utc+1, unified european time, no summer time
FULL metric system, all street signs change to km and kmh
righthand drive
euro
the ‘unitary authority’ is renamed the ‘district’, and the ‘strategic authority’ is renamed the ‘province’
no UK no scotland no wales no ireland no cyprus no chagos no caribbean no nothing
NHS is renamed PHS (public health service) to go alongside three other public x services education, transport and communications
actual high speed rail:
[new HS1 to Dog City, HS2 to Paris via Rouen, old hs2 becomes HS3 all the way to manchester, hs2 east becomes HS4 and extended to scotland, HS5 from Liverpool to Doggerland, and HS6 from London to Wales. HS7 is under construction from Brum to Bristol, as is an HS5 link between Sheffield and Manchester, and an HS4 extension from Nottingham to London. a giant fucking rail link is being built from Scotland to Ireland]
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The Importance of Standardised Payroll Processes
Consistency in payroll improves transparency and reduces operational risk.
https://assetbpo.com/when-should-you-outsource-payroll-for-better-control/
How Socks Won the Roman Empire
YouTube description (SEO-focused) Rome didn’t just win wars with discipline. It won them with manufacturing. At Roman forts like Vindolanda, archaeologists found letters from soldiers requesting socks, shoes, and basic supplies, revealing something modern: Rome ran on logistics. Standardized gear, leather workshops, storehouses, supply officers, and repair systems kept legions moving across rain, cold, and distance. This is the overlooked truth of Roman power: an empire is not held together by heroes, but by systems that can produce and replace ordinary equipment at massive scale.
Standardisation - a way to speed up manufacturing and building
In ancient Rome buildings were originally covered by similar sized, but slightly differently shaped stone. This was called opus incertum and required thorough training and experience for having a nice to look at end result.
Standardisation, first in the size of stone (opus reticulatum) later in the size of bricks (opus latericium), added more complexity for creating the materials, but the building process itself became much quicker and of a more even quality. New workers were easier to train and even experienced workers delivered constant quality, regardless of them having a bad day or not.