https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xYfH8nftFpw

Here’s an interview with a survivor. It is infuriating.

Ugh you’re probably right, it’s going to be our generation’s DMC DeLorean. The vehicle itself will age poorly, but slap it in a BTTF reboot in five years and it’ll fit right in

Probably low-hanging fruit here, but Cybertrucks

Tbh there’s lots of stuff in the Barbie movie that I would consider timeless, especially the feminist aspects of it. What parts of the movie do you think applies to the 2020s but doesn’t apply to, say, 1990 or 1960?

Maybe Cory Doctorow?

No, the right to bare arms. Like, you can wear a tank top if you wanna

Porno for Pyros, is that you?

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d3f506e0-ce0d-4121-b644-0b2a384d6fd5.jpeg

Lemmy is small enough that we can care about each other here, man :) I did read it, and man that really fucking sucks. I’ve been through some similar stuff before, both with severe food aversion and having a narcissistic parent. I understand why you have a negative view of the world right now, and I hope that your circumstances improve. I also hope that you’re able to look at the world more charitably regardless of your circumstances, although I think you’ve got bigger things on your mind right now than emotional growth and that it’s totally reasonable for you to prioritize your physical health.

No, no one ever suggested that. That is an entirely new sentence that you made up. The only thing that was said is that a person cried, and that that same person fished by the bridge as a child. People can feel emotions for more than one reason at a time.

For real, what is going on in your personal life?

Don’t you think that’s an uncharitable analysis? Joe Wade never said anything like what you’re suggesting he did, and the journalist wanted to provide supporting context for the headline’s claim about a lost piece of Baltimore cultural identity. We also do not have access to the full interview, only a single line of it–Wade could have said something about the workers, only for the journalist to omit it because that is not what the article is about. The interview would have been very different, with different questions and different answers and a different person being interviewed, if the topic had been the people who died rather than the culture of the city.

I know you’re capable of better reading comprehension and media literacy than this, and I don’t think you hold a personal grudge against Joe Wade, so what’s going on in your personal life to make you have such a negative presupposition about the world?

It’s a stack of fuckshit, on top of itself!

And also, you’re contradicting yourself. Your original comment opens with “who the fuck cares, it’s 200 years ago” and now you’re saying any information about the past could important?

Bad.

Faith.

My friend, did you even read the article before you typed up your comments? What you’re describing is exactly why they’re removing the binding. FTA:

The Library is now in the process of conducting additional provenance and biographical research into the book and the anonymous female patient whose skin was used to make the binding. The Library will be consulting with appropriate authorities at the University and in France to determine a final respectful disposition of these human remains.

That is a bad faith argument because the physical appearance of the person whose skin binds the cover of a book has absolutely no relevance to the information in the book. In fact, it wasn’t even Arsene Houssaye who bound the book in skin-- it was the book’s first owner, Dr. Ludovic Bouland, who did that.

Can you tell me what the color of a dead stranger’s eyes whose skin was added to a book by a third party has to do with a nineteenth century French novelist’s views on the soul and life after death?

You can’t, because there is no relevance to be had. It’s a bad faith argument.

The information of the book is encoded in the markings on its pages, not the molecular makeup of the binding holding the pages together. Meanwhile, it is the fact that this skull is made of bone that gives it its veracity.

Up until now you’ve been here making good faith arguments, it’d be cool if you could keep that up.

Lots of things were “verified” in 1860. Shit, washing your hands before surgery wasn’t even a common medical practice until the 1870s. The whole point of keeping the original is so that it can stand up to the rigors of modern science and technology.

Technology and knowledge in 150 years will make today’s science seem sincere but laughable, just like today’s science makes 1860 seem sincere but laughable. That’s why you must preserve scientific evidence whenever and wherever you can.

For one, veracity. There are lots of unsubstantiated claims similar to this one, just look at the National Enquirer if you’d like an example. This one is real, with verifiable proof, meaning we can use it as a foundation to build more knowledge on top of. Seeing as there is no moral or ethical way to remove someone’s left frontal lobe as a science experiment, it is as close to a case study as we are ever likely to get.

Was Gage’s skull used for educational purposes that couldn’t be gotten from the information when he was still alive?

Well, when he was alive, he was still using it. That does kinda put a damper on things, from an educational point of view.

And was that worth keeping it for well over a century?

Honestly, yes. At this point in time, Phineas Gage’s skull and the knowledge gleaned from the study of it has been used to educate thousands upon thousands of people, and then each of those multitudes of educated people went on to improve the lives of thousands and thousands of people. That’s pretty damn good for one single cadaver.