• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 23rd, 2023

help-circle
  • Here’s my perspective, but it might be pretty wrong:

    I think the reason for the low demand is due in large part to the pre-existing gas industry, at least in the US. Not just because of marketing advertising gas-powered more, but also because people don’t like to change, and buying a new car is not cheap. Not to mention that the US infrastructure is so heavily solidified in gas. It’s just easier to continue buying gas-powered because it’s already so supported across the country. Then the industry benefits from this because they can say, “oh, huh, looks like people still want gas-powered! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯” and so the cycle repeats.

    I think a lot of people don’t really understand how much power corporations really have over what the people do or don’t do, like or don’t like, etc… 99% of the time people will take the easy option, and corps take advantage of that by making the easy option the cheapest and best for themselves instead of what’s best for the people. Corporations only do what’s right for them, and are masters of making it out to be that that’s what the people want.


  • TheMoose@lemm.eetoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlHow it feels like
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m tired of seeing that argument to validate incorrect usage of words that already exist. Words mean things. People using a language incorrectly don’t get to just decide that the words they’re using mean something else now because that’s how they meant it. That’s not “growing and evolving”, it’s just using the language incorrectly and being too stubborn to admit a fault in themself and instead try to change the language to fit their lack of education about the language and its usage.

    The words “could”, “should”, or “would” followed by the word “of” is completely nonsensical and meaningless. It is a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of “could’ve”, “would’ve”, or “should’ve” being heard audibly because they sound similar. “Apart” literally means the opposite of “a part”, and, again, comes from a misunderstanding from hearing the word spoken rather than seeing it written down because it sounds the same.

    A perfect example of language evolving is the word “another”. It literally is the words “an” and “other” pushed together to form a single word and has the exact same meaning as that. Another example is the word “bosun”. It literally means “boatswain”, and comes from the word being shortened down in spoken communication, but is a completely made up word and has no prior meaning.

    Do not confuse incorrect usage of the language as growth and change.

    I’m sorry for coming off as an ass, I literally did not sleep last night and I’m very tired.








  • TheMoose@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlbetter hurry
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    All good! “Fell” is the past tense of “fall”. Aternatively in some cases you could say “did fall”, though in modern English that’s usually used as an affirmative to a question about the fallen status of the chocolate (e.g. [which is short for the Latin “exemplia gratia” , meaning “for example”], Question: “Did the chocolate fall?” Answer: “Yes, the chocolate did fall” or “Yes, it did fall”).

    There are actually other (irrelevant) meanings of the word “fell”; as an adjective in “a fell beast” for example, “fell” means “fierce, cruel, terrible, or dreadful”; or as a verb meaning “to knock, strike, shoot, or cut down; cause to fall” for example " to fell a moose" or “to fell a tree.”






  • TheMoose@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlUmm, awkwaaaaard!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You have perfectctly described what I have been trying to grasp for years. I’ve found myself liking less and less so many movies from the last ~20 years, but I just couldn’t put my finger on what specifically the reason was. I knew I didn’t like the writing, and especially didn’t like the humor (in particular how forced it felt), but I couldn’t determine quite why.

    What I did know is that it felt like writers saw their audiences as big dumb idiots who can’t detect any nuance in writing, and need everything spelled out for them. It made many movies unwatchably unenjoyable, to the point that I have only seen… I think 5 of the MCU movies (a few of the early ones, a fee of the more recent ones).

    Thank you for helping me to understand.



  • TheMoose@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlUmm, awkwaaaaard!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I saw it as more of a statement on how producers/writers/whoever perceive their audiences. They think that just seeing Batman beat the shit out of a guy isn’t exciting/engaging enough, but having him then say something “relatable” will evoke a positive response.