bramkaandorp

joined 2 years ago
[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Israel won by being allowed to compete.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

"protect".

We know how these people think.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Of course it does. But it always happens about ten years after the breakthrough, and we barely notice, because batteries just get a bit smaller, so the capacity stays the same.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

No, that's the other one.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Maybe it comes from the distinction between meat and fish that stems from fasting in Catholicism.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah, make it twins!

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago

That supposed golden age was a time of massive deregulation, which is still wreaking havoc on the country.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

There is moral, there is legal, and there is ethical.

This may have been moral, as well as legal, but it sure as shit wasn't ethical.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

The organisation that started it is called Eurovision.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Tithing is expected. There is peer pressure involved, so it can hardly be called voluntary.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

So, Trumped up.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Maybe? I don't know the specific rules, so I just went the quotes text.

But yeah, that would be crazy.

 

As the title says, I'm looking for a video where the creator gradually decreases the effort they put into the video.

More specifically, they argue that you don't really need great graphics, which are then dropped. Then, that a great camera isn't necessary, the mic, then video itself, then sound, until it's just text on a screen.

I may be misremembering the order, but the point of the video was that while these elements aren't essential, they do make the video better, again, if I remember correctly.

I hope someone remembers this video.

 

I love Kim Stanley Robinson’s books, and am reading (in some case re-reading) his books in order. At some point, I’m going to get to Green Earth, but since it’s a reworking of the Science in the Capitol trilogy, I wanted to find out just how much it adds/leaves out/changes.

Is the difference significant enough to merit a “re-read”? I'm particularly interested in characterization, but I'm also curious if the science itself has been significantly changed, with resulting plot changes.

Thanks!

view more: next ›