Depending on what exactly they are, these books may be practically worthless. I recently looked into selling some of my old college textbooks (that were $50-100 each at purchase), and they currently list online for <$5 each. Old editions are of no use to current students, and there’s no demand for previous editions (while there’s a good deal of supply).
What date was this published? Jucika looks different.
Ha! In my case I noticed that my comment basically duplicated another and was redundant. I want to make an Ariana Grande “duplicated thus deleted” comparison but I simply don’t know enough about celebrities to do so and you know what, I’m okay with that.
If that’s too basic/open ended, learn to animate in Krita.
There’s a whole trove of portrayals of happy, loving single-child families out there! You just have to look to China’s one-child policy era.
“But Fireweed! This is literally propaganda!” It’s all propaganda, whether it’s “be content with one child” or “be fruitful and multiply.” Media depictions of large families appear fun and loving because the creators make it that way (the more kids the more you have to work with: there’s the jock kid, the geek kid, the uptight kid, the…). Even media about the difficulties of large families (e.g. Cheaper by the Dozen) still end with everyone being happy and loving because it makes for a feel-good ending; that doesn’t mean it reflects reality in the slightest. Society doesn’t like to talk about the darker sides of large families because of heteronormativity, but there’s some media out there portraying large families as hopelessly dysfunctional (Shameless for instance, or you can read about any of the large family “reality TV” shows that have ended in scandal).
Remember that we’re in unprecedented times; large families used to not only be the norm but were practically required (have lots of kids to work the farm, or because you don’t know how many are going to survive to adulthood, or because there’s no social safety net for when you become old/sick/injured except your family members). Nowadays it’s the opposite: more kids equals less resources to go around, and unchecked population growth combined with unchecked consumption is wrecking the planet. But media hasn’t caught up yet, and with influential, wealthy people out there screaming racist nonsense about “crashing birth rates” and “great replacement theory,” there’s pressure to continue to portray large families positively and small families poorly. It’s the same situation as the propaganda I linked above, but in reverse.
In other words, rejoice that you’ve eschewed the media narrative and done the right thing for your family! Also forget visual media (where creators use large families to portray the appearance of a happy family, because more kids = more hugs and smiling faces in the shot = more love, right?) and look to books, where there are plenty of depictions of loving, functional, single-child households.
No, I did not know.
I’m sorry, what community is this supposed to be, again?
Your finished pieces are always so clean and neat. I’d love to see a WIP or progress video some time!
I don’t know if this is exactly what you’re looking for, but give the Confused bi-Product of a Misinformed Culture channel a perusal. He does a few different genres of mixes, including what I would consider psy-trance, although it might require a little digging through the archives to find your precise jam.
no problem on Earth is a result of the population being too high.
Pre-industrial humans caused mass habitat loss, species extinction, and even climate change, and that was with their relatively miniscule populations and emissions. What quality of life are you imagining over eight billion people having such that we somehow don’t continue wrecking the environment? And how do you plan on putting the genie back in the bottle regarding all our polluting technological “advancements” that require fossil fuels and/or intensive mining? Who’s declaring to the world that plastics, electricity, and all forms of motorized technology are over, and how do you imagine this would be enforced?
Even completely stripped of all our technology, humans are still animals, and any animal species will wreak havoc on their environment when overpopulated. Hell you don’t even have to be an animal; go look up the Great Oxygenation Event or what happened when trees first evolved. What do you suppose Earth is going to be like for the millions of years required for it to adapt to the changes we’re making? Unlike monocellular organisms and plants, however, we are sapient creatures; if we can observe this is happening and know we’re the ones causing it, how is it not in any way a moral issue?
Answers in this thread:
Goofy
Unquantifiable using any sort of objective metric
Luck is a big part of it too. Start developing a chronic illness in your 20s/30s? Get ready for a lifetime of dealing with it and its knockoff effects and the various other ailments associated with getting older. Or maybe you’re fine but your spouse isn’t, and instead of supporting each other as you age it’s the two of you just trying to manage their condition.
I assume it wasn’t drilled into them by whoever taught them to drive. Using turn signals is so natural to me that I don’t think I could stop using them without an extended effort at deprogramming myself.
What is this painting? A gay knockoff of The Last Supper?
I was planning to eat this pie as my sole food over the course of 2 days for my One-Meal-A-Day (OMAD)
???
1984, so that people mentioning it online will stop sounding like complete fucking idiots.
Or perhaps The Jungle; it sparked public outcry and major overhauls the last time it became popular, maybe it can work its magic again.
You seen very focused on the “cost per calorie” measure. Have you never heard the phrase “empty calories”?
Iirc, ODD is only diagnosed in children and adolescents. Is this something you’ve experienced since childhood?
It really depends on the subject; mathematics for instance probably isn’t going to change much decade to decade, but psychology is changing constantly.