The current seeder / leecher ratio on Big Bang Theory, this is one of the worst I’ve seen - I’ve dropped my seed limit from 10 to 7.5 because this is just poor form
Australia’s a federation that has has both legislative houses allocated based on number of states.
Huh ? How do you work that out ? The electorates are sized to be equal and the number of electorates in each state changes when the demographics shift. The only qualifier is that out of the 150 seats each state is guaranteed minimum 5 to ensure they don’t end up with zero representation - there are 6 states, so 30 out of the 120 are locked out. Reallocation is done regularly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_Australia#States
The territories aren’t states (by definition) and get treated differently (there is a strong argument nowadays for state-hood but it has not progressed).
“The requirements for territory seats are set via legislation, which currently requires that the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory have at least one member each”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representatives
“One vote, one value legislation requires all electorates within each state to have approximately the same number of voters. In 2022 there was an average of just over 117,000 electors per seat. However, the baseline quota for the number of voters in an electorate is determined by the number of voters in the state in which that electorate is found. The electorates of the smallest states and territories tend to have more variation from the mean in terms of numbers of electors. Each state is guaranteed a minimum of five seats in the Constitution, which has the effect of granting Tasmania more seats than they would otherwise be entitled to due to their population size.[4] Federal electorates have their boundaries redrawn or redistributed whenever a state or territory has its number of seats adjusted, if electorates are not generally matched by population size or if seven years have passed since the most recent redistribution.[5]”
Righto, I’ve spent several hours searching on the subject and the unequivocal answer is it pre-dates Billy Butcher saying it on The Boys by at least a decade, but probably considerably more than that:
The Boys quote is 2024 (to my surprise I thought it was earlier than that) - It occurs in The Boys season 4, in the episode “Beware the Jabberwock, My Son”, broadcast 2024. The wording is “I’d call you a cunt, but you ain’t got the depth or the warmth”, spoken to Annie January (Starlight).
It is unclear with whom the phrase orginated as it seems to be an alteration of an earlier common phrasing.
In 2018 Eddie Vedder refers to Trump in the same manner in a concert in London
In 2012 “Megan” attributes it to Jummy Carr https://xcancel.com/mgetoffmylawn/status/193400754487304192?lang=en But there’s no other record of Carr saying it that I can find
And in 2010 a student (hydrochloricacd) at Boston University reports it as having been said to her in her LiveJournal blog.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120403115750/http://hydrochloricacd.livejournal.com/data/atom
Note the 2012 day is the time of the archive snapshot, if you go to the entry for 2010-08-10 you’ll find it - or just search cunt
(Sorry it’s in raw xml as the wayback machine refused to give that page in formatted html for some reason)
So…that’s as far back as I could find evidence for that exact phrase BUT there’s an identically constructed phrase from the British Army dating back to 1914 where the lack is “usefulness” rather than warmth and depth, but still keeps the same phrasing of “you’re not a cunt, a cunt [has positive attributes]”
Source: Eric Partridge, A Dictionary of Catch Phrases, revised by Paul Beale, 1985
"old cunts. A Regular, then gen., Army c.p.: since 1914. A gloss on the latter: an exacerbated sergeant or sergeant-major often adds, ‘You ain’t even that: a cunt is useful.’ The former ‘was the usual reply to a man who tried to claim superiority by reason of his long service’ "
I’m very sure that it pre-dates “The Boys” by several decades as I am positive I’ve heard it before, at least as early as the 2000s. I can recall an incidence of a much younger me thinking I was very clever repeating it (spoiler I wasnt nearly as clever as I thought I was).
My vague memory is it came from British or Australian comedians (Derek & Clive, Kevin bloody Wilson sprang to mind)
I can’t however find any attribution for it in a search other than the Billy Butcher quote. So I’m afraid that is an unreliable anecdote.
Actually that’s a silver lining to Hormuz I hadnt thought of, so thanks for that. At the rate Raytheon builds patriots we have a couple of years now. Hopefully mango mussolini will be dead before they’re ready to invade Greenland
1933 referendum is a bit more than 50years ago by my count…
If you’re thinking of Lang Hancock’s campaign in the 70s there was no referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessionism_in_Western_Australia
BTW it’s secession and seceding - spelt with a u it means something totally different
Nah matching algorithms are ineffective because a) people don’t know what they want and/or b they’re wildly unrealistic about what they want and/or they’re delusional about their market value.
B is evidenced by the much joked about every woman wanting a 6’4 30yr old earning 7 figures who is good looking,single (not cheating) kind and funny (maybe 0.01% of the dating pool at most)
C is self evident - 3s who think they’re 10s or the woman with 3 kids from 3 fathers not recognising that’s a red flag.
A is the one that confounds the matching system though. People will say they want X, but have spent the last decade dating Y. The pic and profile thing is supposed to get ppl to reveal their actual preferences but it doesn’t seem very effective
LOL, yeah fair. I have it for a family member whose taste is a little iffy.