Seeker of Carcosa @ WilloftheWest @feddit.uk

Posts

1

Comments

90

Joined

2 yr. ago

12 years later is “shortly after”?

The punchline is ANAL.

"Exquisite use of an interrobang, good sir. I doff my fedora to thee."

Sounds like we have the same reading of that statement, and I would say a very similar reading applies to “you’re responsible for getting yourself off.” My issue is with people misappropriating the message to assert that it’s somehow okay to be apathetic to your partner’s needs.

That just sounds like a refinement of “you’re responsible for your own happiness”, which is a maxim of selfish people abusing therapy talk to justify their apathy/callousness towards their partners.

Partnerships are collaborative efforts for mutual gain, not zero-sum games where we’re individually responsible for maximising our own output from the system. A good partner should actively want to see their partner happy and fulfilled.

Bravo to the exceptional bravery on display here. I'm sure the majority of PhD graduates, including myself, wish they'd had the gumption to name and shame the suppressing factors contributing to a toxic academic environment. Reading this makes me kind of appreciative that my troubles were only administrative mismanagement and an inexperienced supervisor.

Also what the hell is up with TU Delft? It's only partway through March and this is the second time this year that I've seen a PhD candidate publicly call out the institute.

If you’re able to do so, try exercise. That was my problem: too much energy to sleep, too tired to expend energy due to poor sleep.

Having worked at institutions with “no Friday deadlines” as a rule, but Monday 8/9am deadlines are A-OK, I feel your pain. The “logic” from central management is that us markers don’t have to mark over weekends and have enough time to mark before classes on Wednesday-Friday, but what’s stopping me from just ignoring the assignment marking until Monday?

Baroque: possessing a marvellous proof, which the margin of your book is too narrow to contain.

For me it’s Grothendieck's prime.

Divisibility by 3 rule is real. If the sum of the digits of a number is divisible by 3, then the number itself is also divisible by 3. Same goes with 9. There’s an 11 rule, but it’s a bit convoluted.

It’s more insidious than dead internet theory. Imagine any significant social media platform containing a large proportion of users that can be directly prompted to tout any message, or mass downvote opinions that the company doesn’t like. All this can happen while the company claims to be a “free speech platform”.

Were you not aware of it at any point? I don’t necessarily mean as part of the GCSE curriculum. I’ve been aware of the Odyssey and the Iliad from the “Ancient Greeks” part of our primary school curriculum back in year 4. Of course we weren’t analysing texts, but I’d expect any ten year old to be capable of rattling off some major plot points like blinding Polyphemus, or sailors plugging their ears with wax against the sirens and tying Odysseus to the mast.

Liam’s a tool. UK schools absolutely do teach the Odyssey, and have done so at least as far back as my youth.

According to who?

Yeah those 3 years really demonstrate how the myth of “they married young in the past” can’t possibly be a myth.

When talking about a lower bound on something, the only information one can directly infer from the statement “13 is too low” is “any number below 13 is also too low.” If you’re arguing that “13 is too low” implies “16 is too low” then ditto 19, 22, 25. It’s an absurd argument.

I’m a mathematician so I’ll give you a free lesson: 13 is less than 16. So in a thread discussing Disney and the historic attitudes of people towards a 16 year old marrying, saying that it was inappropriate for a 13 year old in a Shakespeare play is immaterial to the discussion.

Romeo and Juliet were 13 though.

I thought I was being a reductionist but it seems from that article I might be closer to the truth than I thought. It's weirdly disappointing that it simply boils down to some childish tactic of pretending to be confused by the results, instead of there being some obscure legal precedent.

Can someone better versed in US politics give a quick rundown on how the fake electoral scheme actually works? I’m aware of the physical steps involved but I don’t see how the scheme doesn’t just fail at the first hurdle. In what world can a person not assigned as elector send in their own certificate and not be immediately disregarded? To my mind it sounds like this:

Mrs Krabappel: I’m the fourth grade teacher and have counted the votes for fourth grade class president. Martin Prince wins with 2 votes.

Miss Hoover: No, I’m the real fourth grade teacher and I declare that Bart Simpson wins with 2 votes.

Principal Skinner: There’s no way of discerning who the real fourth grade teacher is. My only option is to ignore the results of the vote and decide by fiat.