SHP Forums

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Fri Dec 05, 2025 11:22 pm That's 142 fl. oz., or about 1.42 liquid gallons. (About 5.5 litres, for anyone not in the USA).

AKSHULLY... 142 fluid ounces is ~1.11 gallons, a little over a gallon. (128 fl oz = 1 gallon.)

You're thinking in terms of the logical decimal system of metric that 142 fl oz = 1.42 gal (just move that decimal!)...

...but that kind of logic doesn't apply to our Imperial system!

========================================

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Mon Dec 08, 2025 3:48 am What would you use quarts for? *curious*

Unless you're doing large-scale or industrial cooking, I'm not certain if recipes actually call for "quarts" (a quarter of a gallon). Usually, it's in fluid ounces. (28 fl oz instead of 0.875 quarts). Pints and cups, being smaller, are more often used in cooking.

"2 cups to a pint, 2 pints to a quart, 4 quarts to a gallon."

We DO refer to the motor oil used in our vehicles in quarts, such as "I just had an oil change, and it took 5 quarts of 10W30 oil."

Rath, if you want to get the hang of liquid weights Sierra style, I can recommend Island of Dr Brain, in which my favourite puzzle is this one:

That's funny; I always associated "pint" with a "pint of beer", but even then, that's not a uniform measurement everywhere. (Not that it matters to me that much, since I don't drink beer; I just don't enjoy the taste).

But according to google, a pint of beer in the UK is typically around 568ml (20 imperial fl. oz.), while in Australia, it's slightly larger (570ml). But in the US, a standard pint is smaller -- just 473ml (16 US fl. oz.)

So ... either Australians are all drunks, or Americans get ripped off when they go to the bar? *shrug*

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Mon Dec 08, 2025 3:48 am Um, I said it was "about 5.5 litres, for anyone NOT in the USA".

hahaaha! Clearly I need to learn to read. English is apparently not my native tongue.

This seems fitting....

Tawmis wrote: ↑Mon Dec 08, 2025 4:40 pm This seems fitting....

Ah, I thought about that video, too!

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Mon Dec 08, 2025 3:52 pm That's funny; I always associated "pint" with a "pint of beer", but even then, that's not a uniform measurement everywhere. (Not that it matters to me that much, since I don't drink beer; I just don't enjoy the taste).

But according to google, a pint of beer in the UK is typically around 568ml (20 imperial fl. oz.), while in Australia, it's slightly larger (570ml). But in the US, a standard pint is smaller -- just 473ml (16 US fl. oz.)

So ... either Australians are all drunks, or Americans get ripped off when they go to the bar? *shrug*

An American my whole life, and I have never been able to remember how many fluid ounces to a pint. But then the British use a few more than we do. Like 1 stone = 14 pounds. But I think stone is only used for body weight not for bags of fertilizer or something.

I was also reminded of this:

Tawmis wrote: ↑Mon Dec 08, 2025 4:40 pm This seems fitting....

Ah, yes. Once again, the Native Americans don't even get a look in (even though some of the tribes within the Iroquois Confederacy fought for Washington).

Yes, black people (both free and slave) fought on both sides, Patriot and British. Both sides promised them freedom, too. (I'm sure you can imagine how that turned out).

notbobsmith wrote: ↑Tue Dec 09, 2025 12:41 am

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Mon Dec 08, 2025 3:52 pm That's funny; I always associated "pint" with a "pint of beer", but even then, that's not a uniform measurement everywhere. (Not that it matters to me that much, since I don't drink beer; I just don't enjoy the taste).

But according to google, a pint of beer in the UK is typically around 568ml (20 imperial fl. oz.), while in Australia, it's slightly larger (570ml). But in the US, a standard pint is smaller -- just 473ml (16 US fl. oz.)

So ... either Australians are all drunks, or Americans get ripped off when they go to the bar? *shrug*

An American my whole life, and I have never been able to remember how many fluid ounces to a pint. But then the British use a few more than we do. Like 1 stone = 14 pounds. But I think stone is only used for body weight not for bags of fertilizer or something.

I was also reminded of this:

Was it this kind of rod?

In rod we trust!

It's a no longer used unit that is (checks Google) 15.5 ft or 5.0292 meters.

A hogshead is 63 gallons (238 liters).

notbobsmith wrote: ↑Wed Dec 10, 2025 12:01 am In rod we trust!

It's a no longer used unit that is (checks Google) 15.5 ft or 5.0292 meters.

A hogshead is 63 gallons (238 liters).

Yep, I researched that part. The quote about the Metric System is from an episode called "A Star is Burns". According to the Episode Capsule ...

.... a 'rod' is around 16 1/2 feet, while a 'hogshead' is around 63 gallons. Roughly speaking, Grampa's car... er, one moment, I'm using my calculator... eugh... well, it just doesn't get very good mileage." I get 0.0025 miles per gallon.

Poor grandpa.

I just can't wrap my head around this...
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... one-rubens

BBP wrote: ↑Sat Jan 10, 2026 5:54 pm I just can't wrap my head around this...
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... one-rubens

That is pretty interesting. Almost like an Escher.

Hmm. The Guardian is not a newspaper I particularly admire, somewhat for its political slant but mainly for its inability to understand irony. I refer to this passage:

...paying the “reasonable price” of less than €100,000 at an online auction.

So ... I doubt they're using "air-quotes" -- why would they? To be sarcastic? -- so they must be quoting the buyer. But if so, surely they should make that clear. That's easy to do, especially in an online newspaper where they don't have to worry about column inches -- just change it to something like:

...paying what he called the “reasonable price”

(etc.)

But more to the point: less than €100,000 for a genuine Rubens is more than reasonable. I call it fantastical. A genuine Rubens is priceless. His Hercules and Omphale, for instance, is a masterpiece, even if it is not considered suitable for young children. His Adoration of the Magi (part of the article) is worldly and exotic, with dynamic movement, rich colour, and sensuality. When he paints flesh, it is rich and voluptuous.

I would not be surprised if Mr. Muller could find a buyer who would pay a pretty sum for a Rubens, especially one hitherto undiscovered!

I got a ginormous headache from watching today's eclipse, but So Worth It!
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2026/07/30 ... 999-90-pe/

I hope you were wearing the special eclipse glasses, BBP. *passes BBP the aspirin*

I saw the story about this in the morning news. We in Australia will not get an eclipse until 22 July 2028, so we have to wait almost 2 years. Lucky!

I like this from the article:

How can you watch a solar eclipse safely?

To look at the sun, you always need special eclipse glasses. Never look directly at the sun or you could suffer permanent damage to your eyes.

And yet, the google search "My eyes hurt" was up 5,000% yesterday.

A woman went blind in the 90s from looking directly at the sun. They're not kidding!