Metals have what're called delocalized electrons, where electrons just kind of wander around a metallic bond between atoms. Metallic bonds involve a very low level of attraction between the nucleus and its electron cloud. Turns out most elements have this, so they do metallic bonding.
It's only when atoms start to get a little wobbly do they exhibit enough electronegativity to perform ionic or covalent bonding, where the molecules donate electrons. Electronegativity increases on the right side of the periodic table when electron valency starts getting lower. And that's the non-metal side.
So the answer is basically that you need more of an electrical charge to exhibit the things we've classified as non-metals. Metals are more chill and generally less reactive.
I should also mention that non-metals have a liquid/solid metallic phase at certain temperatures and pressures. I remember a Chinese study a few years ago claiming to have made metallic nitrogen.
The film's problem was casting Brad Pitt as Durden and changing the ending so that he's successful. The book makes it clear the narrator is completely unhinged and fixated on his hatred of women and femininity.
The book is very clearly a story about straight men not being ok. "straight guys would rather punch each other naked Ina basement instead of go to therapy." The movie doesn't translate that well, so it reads more like a criticism of 90s work culture. Which is fair, but it often misses what Palahniuk intended.
To also be fair though Palahniuk seems to like the movie, but really despises young straight men admiring Durden as some antihero. He elaborates that feeling in the comic sequels.
yeah that's not the point of art nor what it is. What art looks like isn't connected to the quality of it. Go get some perspective by engaging with artists sometime. I'm out. You're not a serious person. See ya.
it's so bleak and I can't sympathize with their perspective at all. It's like the most they get out of art is to see a picture or a movie and say it looks cool. Purely superficial. They don't like art, they like decoration. They don't actually care about seeing a representation of another perspective. They don't care about themes, symbols, or what an artist is trying to communicate, nor do they even want to know.
even mediocre artists actually create art, which is something stable diffusion can't do and will never be able to do. You completely misunderstand what art is and its purpose. It's not just a nice looking picture or a meandering story. You understand art as a technical profession creating a product to sell, which is why you equate AI slop with art. Your earlier comment making a distinction between artists and "ordinary people" is completely wrong. The distinction between someone who's an artist and otherwise isn't technical proficiency or ability to make a picture. It's a deeper skill than that, the ability to be creative, to have perspective. It's an ability to communicate. AI can't communicate because it doesn't have a perspective, since it doesn't actually know anything.
Invertebrate slime? I could call them a bunch of stuff. I mean to say the Democrats are cowards who have no beliefs except cynicism. I don't mean to catch anyone in the crossfire. If you're into coding or Gundam or something that's cool, don't worry, I don't mean you. I own an entire shelf of manga and I repair cassette tape players so I'm a dork too.
They're preparing to do what? Tut tut and issue a statement? Impeach him a third time and fail again to remove him from office? The Democrats don't believe in anything
If they actually believed Trump is the next Pinochet they'd hire someone to kill him. Or they'd go after one of the legit crimes he did rather than anything he'll just slip out of. Biden could get the national guard to burn down Mar-a-lago but he won't.
They don't actually believe in anything. They're spineless dorks who want to pretend they're saving democracy or whatever. It's all theater to these people. In fact, they probably want Trump to win so their districts will throw more money at Democratic fundraisers. What a bunch of goofy nerd libs.
almost no one in China feels that their state is an oppressive force, they feel the opposite. The government has more than a 90% approval rating. The overwhelming majority of Chinese people view their society as legitimate and socialist. If you had any interest in democracy at all you'd respect this perspective instead of imposing your own
Found an article referencing McCarty as a "fire scientist" which is a really cool title. Seems like human drivers of fire is exactly what it sounds like, motivations and causes for why humans set fires.
point is focus your criticisms on your own society that's 1000x worse than even the most exaggerated crimes about China, cracker. Chinese people aren't children and they can handle their own country in their own way, they don't need some forum poster condescending to them and you don't need a warped preoccupation with a country that probably has nothing to do with you
Yeah, cities in America from around 1870 to 1920 had extensive trolleycar networks. They were so widespread you could hop between them and even travel across state lines. Every major city had them and they were the primary mode of urban transportation. Now cities only have trolleycars as a novelty, like San Francisco still has theirs. New Orleans has beautiful streetcar lines. They're mostly used for tourists, but if they were made more extensive and modernized then New Orleans could have very functional mass transit.
Most of the trolley networks were ripped up to make room for extra lanes or parking lots. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be possible to repurpose existing roads for trams/trolleys. I really believe this.
![axont [she/her, comrade/them]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/2289d3c4-69f9-40ed-a21d-cf84b32ccd85.webp?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Metals have what're called delocalized electrons, where electrons just kind of wander around a metallic bond between atoms. Metallic bonds involve a very low level of attraction between the nucleus and its electron cloud. Turns out most elements have this, so they do metallic bonding.
It's only when atoms start to get a little wobbly do they exhibit enough electronegativity to perform ionic or covalent bonding, where the molecules donate electrons. Electronegativity increases on the right side of the periodic table when electron valency starts getting lower. And that's the non-metal side.
So the answer is basically that you need more of an electrical charge to exhibit the things we've classified as non-metals. Metals are more chill and generally less reactive.
I should also mention that non-metals have a liquid/solid metallic phase at certain temperatures and pressures. I remember a Chinese study a few years ago claiming to have made metallic nitrogen.