▲ 137 ▼ China Now Uses 80% Artificial Sand. Here's Why That's A Bigger Deal Than It Sounds (www.zmescience.com) submitted 21 hours ago by inari@piefed.zip to c/world@lemmy.world 28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] DrakeAlbrecht@lemmy.world [S] 38 points 20 hours ago (1 child) There isn't sand. Humans did a thing. There's sand. There isn't a diamond. Humans did a thing. There's a diamond. Those are the literal definitions of "artificial". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world [S] -17 points 17 hours ago (1 child) Now compare my examples to: Artificial wood paneling Do you see the difference now? Could you possibly get magine a word where the two examples I gave were intentionally similar and I wasn't giving every possible permeation? You didn't understand what I said, which is fine, fucking normal even... But instead of asking questions, you stated the obvious. We could have had a deep philosophical, physical, even material science conversation about this. Or rather I'd have elaborated and youd have played the part of a rubber duck. But instead you just said whatever the fuck popped into your head in the moment permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip [S] 25 points 16 hours ago (1 child) We could have had a deep philosophical … conversation about this. Except you fell for the same trap hundreds of thousands of philosophers before you had. Talking right past people because you refuse to understand what they meant by the words they chose to use. “Artificial” describes the process something underwent to become what it is. It doesn’t mean that it’s materially different than its natural counterpart. So what’s ironic is that the deeply philosophical conversation you referenced; that conversation could have happened, but instead you chose to hop on your high horse and argue nonsense about material differences while the argument was really about procedural differences. Had you rose your point, reasonably and fairly so, as a congruent but also slightly off-topic one, it might have been entertained more meaningfully. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world [S] -2 points 9 hours ago (2 children) Again... You could have asked and learned something permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip [S] 6 points 4 hours ago The hubris on you is phenomenal. I don’t mind having not “learned something” in this case. Be nicer. You ought learn something from this experience, not me. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone [S] 4 points 7 hours ago Look at the likes given to each post permalink fedilink source parent
[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world [S] -17 points 17 hours ago (1 child) Now compare my examples to: Artificial wood paneling Do you see the difference now? Could you possibly get magine a word where the two examples I gave were intentionally similar and I wasn't giving every possible permeation? You didn't understand what I said, which is fine, fucking normal even... But instead of asking questions, you stated the obvious. We could have had a deep philosophical, physical, even material science conversation about this. Or rather I'd have elaborated and youd have played the part of a rubber duck. But instead you just said whatever the fuck popped into your head in the moment permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip [S] 25 points 16 hours ago (1 child) We could have had a deep philosophical … conversation about this. Except you fell for the same trap hundreds of thousands of philosophers before you had. Talking right past people because you refuse to understand what they meant by the words they chose to use. “Artificial” describes the process something underwent to become what it is. It doesn’t mean that it’s materially different than its natural counterpart. So what’s ironic is that the deeply philosophical conversation you referenced; that conversation could have happened, but instead you chose to hop on your high horse and argue nonsense about material differences while the argument was really about procedural differences. Had you rose your point, reasonably and fairly so, as a congruent but also slightly off-topic one, it might have been entertained more meaningfully. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world [S] -2 points 9 hours ago (2 children) Again... You could have asked and learned something permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip [S] 6 points 4 hours ago The hubris on you is phenomenal. I don’t mind having not “learned something” in this case. Be nicer. You ought learn something from this experience, not me. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone [S] 4 points 7 hours ago Look at the likes given to each post permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip [S] 25 points 16 hours ago (1 child) We could have had a deep philosophical … conversation about this. Except you fell for the same trap hundreds of thousands of philosophers before you had. Talking right past people because you refuse to understand what they meant by the words they chose to use. “Artificial” describes the process something underwent to become what it is. It doesn’t mean that it’s materially different than its natural counterpart. So what’s ironic is that the deeply philosophical conversation you referenced; that conversation could have happened, but instead you chose to hop on your high horse and argue nonsense about material differences while the argument was really about procedural differences. Had you rose your point, reasonably and fairly so, as a congruent but also slightly off-topic one, it might have been entertained more meaningfully. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world [S] -2 points 9 hours ago (2 children) Again... You could have asked and learned something permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip [S] 6 points 4 hours ago The hubris on you is phenomenal. I don’t mind having not “learned something” in this case. Be nicer. You ought learn something from this experience, not me. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone [S] 4 points 7 hours ago Look at the likes given to each post permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world [S] -2 points 9 hours ago (2 children) Again... You could have asked and learned something permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip [S] 6 points 4 hours ago The hubris on you is phenomenal. I don’t mind having not “learned something” in this case. Be nicer. You ought learn something from this experience, not me. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone [S] 4 points 7 hours ago Look at the likes given to each post permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip [S] 6 points 4 hours ago The hubris on you is phenomenal. I don’t mind having not “learned something” in this case. Be nicer. You ought learn something from this experience, not me. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone [S] 4 points 7 hours ago Look at the likes given to each post permalink fedilink source parent