![](https://lemmy.sdf.org/pictrs/image/16a091ac-6d39-4707-9a2d-3575132a84fa.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0943eca5-c4c2-4d65-acc2-7e220598f99e.png)
It’s a hopeful idea, but it may be too late.
science and music. and beer. and dogs.
It’s a hopeful idea, but it may be too late.
Hah! Ya got me!
But of course I’m talking about the adjective punk, as in " punk rock," which is an entirely other word than the noun puncke, (or, more modern, punk ) which Shakespeare used.
ETA: I don’t mean to imply they’re not related They just aren’t the same word. And one of them was created in the 1970s.
I agree that the word punk came to be associated with aesthetics, almost exclusively. But that is very far from where it started, and it is frustrating for those who started it to see it coopted like this. The association of the word with anything other than anti-consumerism is just " branding" at its worst.
I was a tween when the first version of “punk” came around (yes, that makes me old). I think I can say with authority that the ideals were: anti-corporate, anti-consumerism, and anti-commercialism. Ever since then people have tried to sum it up (and marginalize it) as “DIY.” But that falls well short of what it really was.
Of course, the second it showed any sign of viable popularity, the forces of capitalism, well…, capitalized on it. The obvious examples are bullshit, high production, made-for-tv bands like Green Day getting sold as punk rock. But does anyone remember Urban Outfitters? Holy crap, the open, unashamed corporate pandering!
your large fonts are obnoxious.
You’re speaking of pundits and politicians whose opinions are public and widespread. There is little reason to believe that those folks are sincere in their public statements. They are motivated by greed to lie in an effort to sway the opinions of uneducated people.
Among the general public, those that sincerely hold conservative political views are cognitively impaired. Source: they vote for things that are objectively against their own prosperity.
The kinds of plants we can eat cannot continue to thrive without animals, especially insects around. The whole system is interconnected.
After we win, we’ll all starve to death. I’m not even saying that we have to eat animals. I’m saying that without animals there would soon be no food of any kind.
Think of it like he already spent that money. It belongs to the foundation now, not to him.
Water isn’t the only ingredient. One liter of flour is not nearly one kilogram. More importantly, the mass of one liter of flour varies a lot depending on how much it settled in the container. That’s why weight is always the better way to measure ingredients.
And one pint of water is one pound.
You’ve completely missed the point, which is that most of the world measures ingredients (like flour for instance, where one pint is not one pound) by weight and not by volume.
I can tell you know this, I’m just tacking it on for those who don’t:
Why do the nuclei stick together at all, once you’ve pushed them together? Because the nuclear force, which is attractive instead of repulsive, is just a little bit stronger. OK, so why then doesn’t the nuclear force just pull all atoms together? Because it is short range, and only works once the nuclei are “touching.”
It totally works for media. Just need a law that says, if a work is published, anyone can distribute it for the same fair licensing fee. That’s the way “cover” music works - any cover band can play any other musician’s work. Nobody can refuse them that right. Then the venue where they perform pays a flat fee to an agency for the license. This doesn’t work great in music, but we could create a better model for streaming. it’s not impossible.
That may be an excuse they used, but I doubt that was really their motivation.
Camel case is the way. Why use underscore instead of space when you could just,… not?
Agreed.