From the wiki, the idea comes from an essay that somebody has written about a conversation they had with a friend about the struggles of chronic illness. The conversation took place at a restaurant, and she grabbed the spoons for use in a metaphor because there were spoons nearby. She gave her friend a set of spoons, and every time her friend mentioned doing a task, she took a spoon away.

It could have been anything, but spoons happened to be at hand and she wanted to make a physical representation of an abstract concept. The essay resonated with people, so spoons became entrenched. And now I hear people say that they’re all out of spoons to express the idea that they’ve done all that they can that day.

And following (or preceding) that, there is: preantepenultimate and propreantepenultimate.

At the national level, that’s true. The candidates are usually quite distinct and very well known, so holding a particular endorsement is unlikely to change anything.

However, I do find them useful in local elections. In those, the candidates are usually (but not always) pretty closely aligned, so it’s hard to make a decision based off of what their campaign is promising. They also frequently involve candidates that are fairly new to politics, so it can be difficult to learn more about their past outside of what their campaign puts forth. So I’ll usually learn something worthwhile from an endorsement that can help me make a decision. I also have a good opinion of some of the local magazines that make me more willing to trust their recommendations.

deleted by creator

“Jones” is an American slang word meaning to be addicted to something, so “jonesing” for something means to crave something very strongly, and generally very vocally.

“Breve” is a coffee drink that is commonly made with half-and-half, which is a product that is equal parts cream and milk. I assume that people have taken to using the term to refer to half-and-half itself, but I’ve not personally heard that.

So the sentence is saying that their cat was addicted to half-and-half and would act like a junkie doing anything to get their next fix.

Yeah, reading the article, it sounds like they’ve decided to park at the space station because the parts that malfunctioned during the journey to the space station were not designed to survive re-entry, meaning that they won’t have the opportunity to understand what went wrong with them after they return to Earth. So they’re delaying the departure in order to collect as much information as possible about what went wrong in the first part of the mission. They’re still confident that a safe return is going to happen.

Well the origins were laudable, it’s just that it was shortly thereafter extended for racist means. Binet and Simon wanted to see if they could devise a test to measure intelligence in children, and they ultimately came up with a way to measure a child’s mental age.

At the time, problem children who did poorly in school were assumed to be sick and sent to an asylum. They proposed that some children were just slow, but they could still be successful if they got more help. Their test was meant to identify the slow children so that they could allocate the proper resources to them.

Later, their ideas were extended beyond the education system to try to prove racial hierarchies, and that’s where much of the controversy comes from. The other part is that the tests were meant to identify children that would struggle in school. They weren’t meant to identify geniuses or to understand people’s intelligence level outside of the classroom.

The ask that YouTube manage their system better. Currently, they assume that a copyright claim is valid unless proven otherwise, and it is difficult for content creators to actually get them to review a claim to determine if it is invalid. So, a lot of legitimate users that post videos without actually violating anybody’s copyright end up being permanently punished for somebody illegitimate claim. What we want is for YouTube to, one, make it more difficult or consequential to file a bad claim, and two, make it easier to dispute a bad claim.

However, that’s not going to happen because the YouTube itself is legally responsible for copyrighted material that is posted to their platform. Because of that, they are incentivised to assume a claim is valid lest they end up in court for violating somebody’s legitimate copyright. Meaning that the current system entails a private company adjudicating legal questions where they are not an impartial actor in the dispute.

So your concern is legitimate, but it’s ignoring the fact that we already are in a situation where a private company is prosecuting fraud. People want it to change so that it is more in favor of the content creators (or at least, in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty), but it would ultimately be better if they were not involved in it whatsoever. However, major copyright holders pushed for laws that put the onus on YouTube because it makes it easier for them, and it’s unlikely for those laws to change anytime soon. That’s what I’d say we should be pushing for, but it’s also fair to say that the Content ID system is flawed and allows too much fraud to go unpunished.

You’re talking about the court system. They are talking about Content ID. YouTube makes it easy to submit faulty copyright claims with little repercussions if they fail, so there are more fraudulent claims than you’d see in the actual court system. They want YouTube to penalize the abuse of their system more strongly so people that upload videos don’t have to deal with so much shit.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it means to cut in a wasteful manner, particularly in terms of fabric. From elsewhere, it looks like it’s also used in construction in regards to cutting material such that the remaining sections are not usable for other purposes.

However, I’m not sure how stale bread discourages such cuts.

I prefer Software Engineer, mostly because I studied at an engineering school and have a degree in Software Engineering. My actual titles have varied throughout my career, but I overall consider myself a software engineer.

You’re saying that it doesn’t matter because the US government is able to prove his citizenship, but that isn’t in question. The crux of this matter would be whether OP was ignorant of his citizenship and if that ignorance would have any relevance to his case.

Securing official documents only available to American citizens makes it more difficult to argue that he was ignorant of his status as an American citizen. He likely could still make a compelling argument (provided he acts quickly), but it does make it a bit more difficult.

Oh, and once you build that, I’ll move in and expect you to build the rest of the house on top of it.

Yeah, I found it on my laptop and was too lazy to send it over to my phone where I was on lemmy. So I typed it up, and then I actually sent the link to my phone when it was pointed out that it was broken.

Well, maybe lazy isn’t the right word. But I was too something.

It was an interview with Jonathan Swan about COVID-19 where Trump had a bunch of papers with graphs trying to show that the US was doing well with cases. The paper he handed over showed the rates of deaths per case (though Trump didn’t seem to understand the graph), and Swan was asking him about the high rate of deaths in the US when looking at the total population of the country.

https://youtu.be/NmrEfQG6pIg

I like Robert Delaunay, and also his wife, Sonia Delaunay. Their work involves a lot of bright, vibrant colors. It also was rather abstract or impressionistic, which I enjoyed. I think I like Piet Mondrian for similar reasons. Jan Sluyters would be another.

I also like JMW Turner a lot. I’m a sucker for lighting and dynamic skies in paintings, and his work features that very prominently. Frederic Edwin Church is another painter along these lines that I really enjoy.

A more contemporary passive that I like is Nina Tokhtaman Valetova. Her work also involves a lot of bold colors.

For digital copies of written works in the public domain, projectgutenberg.org is a good source.

The idea here are very interesting to read, but I think I’m leaning most favorably towards the last group’s idea to bury it with as little marking as possible. The plans modeled on Stonehenge seem odd to me. Stonehenge is famously a monument whose origin and purpose was a mystery, and that mystery enticed people from all over the world to travel to the site and excavate it. It seems more like a good reference for a method that would not work. How many people would have toyed around at Stonehenge if the monument weren’t there?

At the same time, we have events with contaminated materials being used in construction within a matter of months or years, so it’s not like these are abstract problems. E.g., look at the 1983 Ciudad Juárez Cobalt 60 incident. We have the technology to identify contaminated materials, but we’d only use them if we have reason to believe we should. It’s probably fair to assume the same of future societies, so it makes sense to want to make sure they have reason to believe they should test the area.

The order of operations is a convention created by humans so as to ensure a consistent understanding of mathematical expressions. The reason for them being the way they are is merely because that’s what we’ve agreed upon.

I like the explanation from Gnostic Christianity the best (though gnosticism is considered heretical by the vast majority of Christians). It seems to fill in a lot of plot holes, but I guess people that actually believe the stories as true don’t like to think about that.

The gist of it is that the God of the Old Testament is not the same a the God of the New Testament. The NT God is the true creator of the universe, and when He created the universe, He created lesser emanations of Himself. Each emanation had a divine spark within them that tied them back to God. One of these emanations, Sophia, tried her hand at creation by creating the OT God. However, this creation was a corrupt being as she was unable to instill a divine spark within it. So she hid him away from the rest of creation.

That God found Himself alone and created the world in His image and declared Himself as the one and only God. However, since he was a corrupted creation, the world He created was corrupted as well.

Sophia came clean about her mistake to the true God, so he sent her counterpart, Christ, to the Garden to try and spread the knowledge of the true reality to the humans. He created the Tree of Knowledge and took the form of a serpent to convince Eve to eat from that tree, which would give her knowledge of the corruption in the world. However, the OT God was jealous of the true God, so He cast them out and made them forget what they learned.

Later on Christ returned to Earth and sacrificed himself so that his divine spark could be set free into the world and fix the corruption that was inherent in its creation. His disciples were given the mission of spreading the knowledge of this to all of humanity.