Just curious, when you say "those products are still on the shelves", do you mean they're selling product from the lot numbers that were recalled?
You should be able to tell the grocery store employees and have them remove it if they're selling recalled products, but also I wouldn't be surprised if they're only selling products that are no longer part of those recalled lots
Edit: WAIT you said "still not on the shelves", sorry! Ignore my comment lol
I feel like this is true if the reader is meant to have the perspective of the person who feels that something is magic (the Hobbits, in the example from your video). However, not all magic in fiction is like this, and sometimes the reader is supposed to mostly have the perspective of Galadriel, or to gain her perspective over time.
An example is Lev Grossman's The Magicians. The reader has the perspective of the Hobbits at first, because that is the perspective of the main character. But the story has themes of "lifting the veil" of magic, and by the end both the main character and the reader have a more similar perspective to Galadriel.
I guess what I mean is, I agree with you and the video's author in large part... but like... to broadly say that magic "should" be used in literature in a certain way ignores how it can be used in different ways to great effect!
shoulda said "yarrr, ye dumb bastard!"
awesome!! I'm psyched you caught it and enjoyed it :-)
that is pretty metal and sick, you're right
the tradeoff is that the ring of fire means you can't look directly at it even at peak totality...
but either is so friggin hype
pictures cannot capture the ephemeral, indescribable beauty of the moments of totality
total eclipse wins every time
get effin HYPE
Hi hello I'm your friendly neighborhood molecular biologist and I want to tell you (or anyone who might think like you) that you're totally fucken wrong lol
It is commonly accepted by contemporary biological scientists that sex exists on a spectrum. The technical definition of sex involves the size of gametes (in humans: sperm and egg cells) that are created by the organism, but we don't usually go around "unsexing" people who don't make gametes (the infertile, the elderly, etc.)
Instead we might look at chromosomes, genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics (beard, breasts, voice, etc.). Although the state of these characteristics often aligns (ie. XY usually means penis and more hair) they for sure definitely do not always.
You can have unusual chromosome combinations (XXY, XXX, etc.), you can have a modification of the signalling pathway for sex hormones (androgen insensitivity), you can have mutations in specific genes relating to secondary sex phenotypes (extra hair, no hair, voice changes, etc.). You might have a person whose gentalia say "female" but chromosomes say "male". You might get a person whose face, voice, and body says "female" but whose genitalia say "male".
You might think these things are too rare to bother with, but intersexuality (defined as a person who's sex can't be conventionally filtered into male or female) is estimated to be as common as 2% of the population (basically the same as red-headed people in the USA). Many people estimate that the actual incidence of unalignment between all sex characteristics as assigned gender is even more common if we expanded the definition to include internal brain structures relating to sexual and gender identity, or natural differences in hormone quantities that overlap between members of different sexes. Basically, science says non-binary is valid as fuck.
That's not even to get into the social construct of gender, but there's a whole scholarly discipline there as well. But I'm a biologist and people weirdly trust essentialist constructs of sex and gender more than social ones, so here I am.
Love this quote, but struggling to look the book up. Do you by chance mean "The Prophet" by the same author? There's a painting by his cousin (with the same name) called "The Prince" so I could totally see the names getting confused.
If it's really The Prince, can you link it? I just love this quote a lot
You said it yourself-- the reason those people need to make weird choices like trying to find any way to qualify for more government assistance is because historically their income came from industries that don't and can't exist anymore. They don't have any other choice. The solution is actually more availability of assistance resources so people from those places can have enough stability to be able to make choices like learning new skills or moving to a new place. Why can't people like him-- who see this happening to the people around him, his neighbors, his family-- empathize?
Why post this summary article from an obscure news group when you could have posted the actual report from the former official?
It's written in accessible language, so it's not like it's too technical to understand or anything...