Like all Church schisms it’s “we’re the only ones who are right about how our god is supposed to be worshiped”, so they don’t feel bad about taking the names of Anglicans or Catholics because they think that those other groups are doing religion wrong, so who cares if it’s confusing.

Anglican really just means a version of the Catholic church splintered off by Anglo-Saxons

The proto-Anglicans stopped being Catholics when King Henry the 8th couldn’t get the pope to annul his marriage, so he split the English church from the Catholic church. So, for 500 years, the Anglicans haven’t been Catholics. And it has nothing to do with “Anglo-Saxons”. Anglo-Saxons are a cultural group from the middle ages. The Church of England and Anglicanism comes from centuries later and applies to the country of England under the king Henry the 8th. The Church of England and/or Anglicanism doesn’t date from the middle ages, it was effectively a political construction due to the king wanting a divorce and not to have to answer to the pope. But, the reasons behind the split don’t really matter as much as the fact that the people following churches related to that split haven’t recognized the authority of the pope for centuries, so they’re not Catholics.

In this case, the name is really misleading because the Anglicans don’t consider them to be Anglican, the Catholics definitely don’t consider them to be Catholics, and you can’t really merge the Anglican and Catholic faiths because they’re so different.

Why couldn’t there just be a soap dispenser on the wall nearby? That’s pretty common at heavy traffic sinks like at stadiums, movie theatres, etc.

Not according to the Catholic church. They’re not Anglicans according to the Anglican church either.

Australia’s Anglican church is the Anglican Church of Australia, which has 3.1 million members. The Anglican Catholic church is a very confused and tiny church with only 35k members.

The Anglican Catholics split from the American Episcopal church, which itself split from the Anglicans when the US split from England. After all, having the king as the head of your church doesn’t make much sense if you just had a revolution to declare independence from that king.

So, it’s pretty weird, the Anglican Catholics want to be connected to the Anglican church, after their church split from the Anglicans in the American Revolution, and to the Catholics who split from the Protestants in the 1500s. It’s almost as confused as something like Jews for Jesus.

Yeah, the Nazi who’s an Anglican Catholic priest runs a gamer website. Sure, it sounds like Mad Libs, but it’s just 2025.

It’s not the Anglican church.

He’s not Catholic.

Their exhausted, well-flushed kidneys.

Your poor kidneys.

If the US ever gets a reasonable privacy law, I really think smart toilets that measured and analyzed your waste could be very helpful tools. In the current world it would be a privacy nightmare though.

A glass of water isn’t necessarily a “cup” in US cooking units.

Let’s say that he’s drinking from small glasses, only 200 mL each. 37 drinks of 200 mL is 7.4 L of water (1501 teaspoons in American units).

That’s a ridiculous amount of water. 7L of water has a mass approximately of 7 kg. Apparently Brady weighs about 100 kg, so if he’s not lying he’s drinking 7.5% of his body weight every day? My bet is that even the biggest NFL player playing in sweltering summer heat isn’t going to need more than 7 L of water per day.

Maybe, but they’re already criminals, they might already know other criminals who sell drugs. If so, it’s probably easier just to cash out the cryptocurrencies and pay for those drugs in cash.

I’m saying that bartering was never a real thing that happened, at least not on any large scale. I’m also saying that debt existed long before currency. So, this idea that there was a difficulty when someone had a goat and someone else had 50 apples, that wasn’t a real problem that ever happened.

Even once currency was fairly common, paying for 50 apples in currency was rare. Most of the time, things were handled using debt and/or gifts. For example, roman coins are common, but the number of coins actually in circulation in roman times was tiny compared to the size of the roman economy. That’s because the most common arrangement was debt, which was often paid back not in coin but by returning something that offset or canceled the debt.

Try getting in your car and telling a random shop you don’t have cash but you’ll pay them back.

What do you think a credit card is?

You say something stupid (hypothesis), your friend dares you to do it

What’s the hypothesis there?

“I’m going to piss on that window.” doesn’t involve a testable hypothesis.

I don’t know if it would work, but what I’d try to do in that situation is to make it clear the kids will get more of your time and attention if they put in more effort themselves.

Like, the kid asking how far away Paris is: get the kid to come up with an estimate and how he/she’d check that estimate. Once they put in the work like that, you give them more time to get to the answer.

The kid asking about microwaving a fork, tell them it’s a dangerous thing to do, tell them you might be able to find a video showing what happens. But, first, ask them to come up with 5 other things they shouldn’t touch in the kitchen without a parent’s permission and a reason why and write them down.

I don’t have kids, but my dad did something a bit like that with me, and my uncle did something like that with his kids. It seemed to work. I was too young to really remember exactly how it worked with me, but I do remember happily doing research on things and then getting attention from my dad about what I’d figured out. With my uncle, I got to watch his kids (5-6 years younger than me) and how this sort of thing worked. He’d spend about 5 seconds deflecting them, they’d go off and do some things on their own, and he’d have more time to relax. Sometimes they got bored or distracted and didn’t come back. When they did come back, they’d come back with something more than just a random question, and he’d spend time with them about what they’d discovered.

Mythbusters embodied the scientific method, but I do wish they’d stopped to actually properly explain it at some point. “Writing it down” is definitely part of the process, but it’s not the whole process. The whole process is what they actually did in most of their episodes:

1. Make a prediction
2. Design an experiment to test that prediction
3. Run the experiment and observe the results
4. Come up with a conclusion

Sometimes they played fast and loose with some of these steps to make entertaining TV. But, fundamentally, they were doing science.

“Evil” people have motivations too. There’s no overthinking needed. He’s frequently played by Putin, and this makes the most sense.