My comrade, we are nearly half way in. The Charleston is not coming back.

And a phone.

Son is 18.

Ask for more rent.

Feels for the people who first watched Wizard of Oz on a black and white TV.

If it feels like old twitter now will it feel like new twitter eventually?

The medium is the message and the platform is the users.

What a gorm thing to say.

Dude, the use of “mongoloid” is not cool.

You know what it means, right?

Best moment of Disco Elysium for me.

I ended up in an argument with some Americans about the British stealing the tradition of Halloween from the US.

“How can it be British?! You didn’t have pumpkins”.

I had to point out that we know the British didn’t ‘steal’ the tradition from the US because we know we stole it from the Irish.

I just sighed so hard I put my back out.

Just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean it is untrue.

See also, “this is new to me therefore I have discovered it”

This is like reverse appropriation and is just as bad.

You know, the British Science Association promotes STEAM as a way to combat that, particularly within the STEM pipeline starting at young people.

https://www.britishscienceassociation.org/news/future-forum-report-2022-published

Also

“As a Hispanic-American, I have been fortunate to navigate through the clutter of the STEM world and find and pursue my passion. For many, the thought of STEM studies – and the enormity of the term – creates fear before consideration of the potential reward. We need more education and access in all communities, representing people of all ethnic backgrounds and walks of life, providing a clear understanding of the many exciting paths available in STEM so that kids can find the specific field that inspires them.”

Unfortunately, as Stukalsky and visionaries like him would tell you, “We need minorities” is not a diversity strategy. Encouraging non-white talent from all aspects of the socioeconomic spectrum to consider a technical career requires unfettered access and opportunity. In fact, lumping all our efforts behind this clunky, tired acronym of STEM only dissuades young people from trying out fields that might interest them due to false equivalencies.

Maybe there’s an economically disadvantaged student whose life was touched by cancer, who dreams passionately of going to medical school and curing cancer. She might be reluctant to participate in STEM camps and the like because she struggles with math, and to most, “STEM” equals “math.” Or she might feel that such programs only cater to teaching software programming, which doesn’t interest her. How do we open the doors for her to pursue a career in medicine when we’ve grouped what is arguably the most important field in the universe with a bunch of unrelated subjects?

Article here

I think that’s the point, the arbitrary division line over the arts and sciences is a wildly restrictive categorisation.

Most scientists I know are highly creative and very arts literate. Likewise, many professional artists are highly technical in practice.

It sort of is.

He used his executive position to kill the story.

Could they have written the headline, “Washington Post Endorsement Killed by Bezos”?

Sure. But tradition dictates you lead with the person. People are interested in people.

You are right. It is click-baity, but that’s because it is a newspaper headline and all newspaper headlines are “click bait”. They literally invented it. That’s why we have headlines. Often in bold and large type.

I disagree that this is misleading though, especially if you expect folk to read the whole sentence.

I think it is traditional newspaper language.

For instance to “kill a story” or “catch and kill”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_and_kill

I think they expect most people to get that.

There ain’t no rift in STEAM.

Fleetwood Mac and cheese.

Yeah, OK. I’m in.

The big brain move was to ask them first, thereby proving you wanted to use their IP.

If he had just faked it anyway without asking he might have got away with it.

Genius strategist.

I do find it interesting that folk think Renaissance art is realistic.

I’m being a little glib, but the truth is that we are still looking at hyper-idealised bodies.

The main difference,I suspect, is the use of perspective rather than drawing on a flat plane. In a way it took a leap of imagination to make things look more “realistic” whilst sculpture was merely (again, said with a certain smirk) just mimicking what the artist could see and feel in the real world.

That is to say that sculpture is reproduction whilst drawing is representation, and with representation you need to be able to take some pretty big leaps for both the artist and the viewer to work these things out.

Yeah? Cool.

I don’t think that’s true. There’s a great video here that highlights the fact that even a lot of modern slang is far older than you think.

https://youtu.be/BFgg-Gy0E2g?si=4qXv92KZaMN0odKO