TheTechnician27
@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
- Comment on something to be reinvented 3 days ago:
Were the bologna and the asbestos condoms at any point related?
- Comment on there's a Costco at the other end 3 days ago:
Oh, wow. That’s, you know,
gaudy. Thank you for the source.
- Comment on there's a Costco at the other end 3 days ago:
Seriously: send it all straight into the Hudson River. Who needs “detention ponds” to “offset flood risk”?
- Comment on Is there any such thing as "edutainment" shows for adults? 3 days ago:
[There are some problems with Kurzgesagt.(www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjmsfOXy5oM) mentioned in another comment. Although xkcd’s “What If?” can be a fun way to kill a few minutes in a similar-ish vein.
Something I’ve quickly come to embrace after watching this Zoe Bee video about Peterson “University” is the concept of “friction”, namely that your brain will trick you into thinking you’re learning a lot when there’s little friction (e.g. a lecture, an infographic, etc.) and vice-versa when there’s a lot of friction (e.g. solving problems on your own, having to teach others, etc.). She remarks that there needs to be friction for learning to happen (albeit that it is not sufficient for learning) and that people are consistently terrible at self-evaluating what they’ve learned because of this inverted thinking.
I think 3Blue1Brown can achieve this edutainment ideal, for example, but I firmly believe that unless you already know the subject, those “pause and ponder” opportunities aren’t just a formality.
It’s on the lower–medium end of “friction”, but I genuinely think undergraduate-level history textbooks (where you don’t need to know a ton going in, unlike e.g. a STEM textbook where you could be lost) can be a great form of edutainment on their own. I’ve been reading “A Concise History of Korea” (2nd ed., 2016) by Michael J. Seth. It concisely (read: ~500 fairly dense pages, but hey, it’s an entire-ass country dating to at least 676 as a cohesive nation) covers the history of Korea that we know of from ancient times until 2015. The prose is engaging and understandable but not flowery, the end of every chapter has primary source material you can read, there are tons of interesting one-off stories (especially as it pertains to folklore), and to me, the coherence of the reality – the running threads throughout – are more interesting than fiction.
What I just said sounds absurd, but please, if your library has one of these and you have spare time for entertainment, spare it a thought the next time you’re picking out a book (or generally looking for something to do).
- Comment on Bee 5 days ago:
Mark, this is good news.
- Comment on that's some fucking aerodynamics bro 6 days ago:
For a camper that probably already gets like five meters to the sippy cup? It matters. The exposed area is probably like 1/5 the size of the front of the vehicle, and most of the driving you’re doing with one of those is highway.
- Comment on On the seventh day, god created uranium 6 days ago:
You fools. You absolute fucking simpletons. The devil placed those decay products there to lead us astray. Pray in Jesus’ name AMEN and share this with the loony science false believers!!;
- Comment on Amateurs 1 week ago:
I’ve… done things you people wouldn’t believe…
Erections dribbling precum on the shoulder of the New Jersey Turnpike.
I watched semen glitter in the dark in the LHC.
All those… moments… will be lost in time, like jizz on the floor of a Kwik Trip bathroom.
Time… to nut.
- Comment on wat 1 week ago:
This explanation is the wrong intuition for why space can expand FtL. It’s an understandable one to infer, but the balloon one further down is correct and the one most commonly used by cosmologists for a lay audience.
Our current understanding of cosmological expansion works by Hubble’s law, and that equation puts no such 2x cap on the recession speed.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
Shit.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
Freedom subject to the instance you are signed up to (and posting to)
Referring to the underlying software, not to moderation. Which is sort of a corollary to federation, but not entirely when you look at something like Bluesky where you can federate but don’t truly run your own “Bluesky”. Sure there’s implicit trust in what the instance is running since you aren’t auditing it, but I’m willing to see shades of grey and that this is better in that regard than corporate social media.
If you are looking for this in a community called “Lemmy Shitpost”
Not really (although a number of people on Lemmy put in the effort to make clever, homebrewed shitposts, which is beside the point). Sometimes Lemmy Shitpost just has funny stuff that makes for a more well-rounded social media experience. I never said I’m only looking for thought-provoking interactions; intelligent company doesn’t have to be self-serious. The whole reason I even made my original comment is that I’m persistently disappointed that I can’t walk into a thread about an obvious fiction made as a joke and think that Lemmy collectively understands the difference.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
but the people you’re speaking of (ones who don’t check the community name before taking this for granted) are probably not going to be reading these comments either
Genuinely fair, well-considered point. I appreciate it and will consider it the next time I see something like this.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
- I like the Reddit/threadiverse format.
- I like the fact that it’s free as in freedom.
- I like federation.
- I like that there are intelligent people; the collective is extremely frustrating and intellectually lazy, but there are actual thought-provoking interactions.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
You’ll be tagged as the one who thought a shitpost was serious
Please do tag me; tag me as the one who didn’t think a shitpost was serious but that Lemmy users collectively cannot be trusted to tell the difference.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
Shit, no, I think you’re right, actually: maybe Lemmy are worth taking seriously because I remember they were smart enough to correct your stupid, confidently incorrect ass the other day with “hurr durr Windows viruses can’t run through WINE”.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
You know what, I’ll just copy–paste this here, although I’ve never actually hoarded examples of all the times Lemmy was essentially as dumb as Reddit:
Several weeks ago, there was this post in a news community to a BBC News article. It was a real article; no tricks, correct headline. But the link was a 404. When I found it, it was upvoted about 20–0. I downvoted it as obviously nonfunctional but also commented remarking that it’s a 404 and giving the OP the correct link. When I came back to that post a couple hours later hoping to upvote a fixed link, the link was unchanged, it was upvoted 50–1 (my downvote), and it had one comment (mine) upvoted 1–0. (Edit: I checked, to preemptively clarify, that this wasn’t a “me” problem.)
Lemmy users collectively have the media literacy of a housefly.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
The people I party with aren’t morons like the average Lemmy user.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
Lemmy will and does believe literally anything; I’m sorry that I take it within that context.
- Comment on Backup 1 week ago:
And then everyone stood up and clapped.
Guys, you can slap text over anyone’s portrait and say they did literally anything; it doesn’t make it true.
- Comment on Robbed 1 week ago:
“I’d just assume” is functionally the same as “I think”, because nobody first asked you “well if you had to assume, what would’ve happened?” We’re all adults here; we all understand what words mean.
And I used “provocative” because you’re directly implying a form of patriarchical censorship for inherently one of two reasons or some combination: the patriarchical system 1) thinks it’s too provocative or 2) thinks it’s too superfluous, and (2) isn’t per se patriarchy; reasonable minds can differ on whether the scene merited inclusion. I’m sure it wasn’t like that scene from The Room where they make a big deal out of Mark’s clean-shaven face; I’m sure the protein filaments growing out of Robbie’s armpits weren’t the nominal objective of the scene. Thus I assumed you were referring to the only one that’s strictly, inherently patriarchical for which there wouldn’t be a more plausible explanation.
- Comment on Robbed 1 week ago:
You’re just assuming that (practically unfalsifiably) when the director suggests nothing of the sort, when footage gets cut from movies literally all the time for every reason under the Sun, and when there’s shit in that movie an order of magnitude more provocative (see: the skin room) than a woman with hairy armpits (let alone historically accurately).
- Comment on Robbed 1 week ago:
The Wuthering Heights director Emerald Fennell said it was “unfortunate” that a scene showing Margot Robbie’s hairy armpits did not make the final cut, because women in period adaptations are often shown with clean-shaven underarms.
Robbie’s character, Cathy, had “extremely hairy armpits” in the 2026 adaptation of the novel, but “unfortunately the scene that we see them didn’t make it in there”, said the director.
Cathy having unshaven pits “was so important to me”, she said, adding that she often wonders “where are the razors that these women are using?” when watching Jane Austen adaptations.
“They’re all kind of hairless like eels. I’m like: ‘What’s going on? It’s completely mad.’”
I think something pretty normal and understandable that people who are used to drowning in other people’s vocal paraphilias online will immediately and erroneously assume is something sexual.
- Comment on I will kill you 1 week ago:
The only thing I could think of when I read that is that they’re calling cigarette smokers “losers” while spending their time calling cigarette users “losers” in a meme community on a backwater social media site.
I laughed; if I smoked, I’d have laughed harder.
- Comment on I will kill you 1 week ago:
I’m about as anti-smoking as it gets, and whaaaaat the hell is this.
- Comment on Cultural impact 1 week ago:
From your comment I gather enough to conclude that the main premise of the accusation is “Shakespeare told by animals,” and I concur that that’s laughable.
It’s somehow baser than you suspect for the accusations against The Lion King – but more complex for Aladdin. I’d highly recommend Lindsay Ellis’ video for a history lesson exploring the nuances. I’ll at least spoil that Kimba has nothing to do with Shakespeare and that whatever level of tepid, token generosity you’re willing to grant the plagiarism accusations, it’s dumber than that.
- Comment on Cultural impact 1 week ago:
- The accusation for Aladdin is complicated and is based on *The Thief and the Cobbler.
- On the other hand, your instincts are entirely right about The Lion King, and when I say “YMS eviscerated it”, I mean that it’s the most comically ridiculous accusation of plagiarism you could possibly come up with. This is genuinely worth 147 minutes of your time, and it’s one of the funniest videos I’ve ever watched.
- Comment on Cultural impact 1 week ago:
As someone who hasn’t watched FernGully (but should), I’m increasingly skeptical of these types of “plagiarism” comparisons between movies. Lindsay Ellis recently broke down the “Aladdin was stolen” narrative and compellingly showed “it’s complicated”, and more obviously, YMS five years ago fucking eviscerated the then-popular argument that The Lion King was a ripoff of Kimba the White Lion.
- Comment on A Golf Trophy that you will always cherish 1 week ago:
With a free Cheerios cock ring in every box for a limited time.
- Comment on history repeats itself once again 2 weeks ago:
You can also check the diffs to see exactly what changed! Seeing how major articles progressed (especially ones that started in the early 2000s or when the subject was only marginally notable) is a lot of fun.
- Comment on history repeats itself once again 2 weeks ago:
My favorite of all time is the beautiful concision of the article “YouTube”'s first version:
YouTube is a website for hosting videos. It is similar to Flickr, except instead of photos, it is for videos.