• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    641 day ago

    Here’s a version without the bad crop, comedy homicide, pointless circle around the punchline, and puritanical censoring

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1722 hours ago

    In his essay “To Tell a Chemist” (1965), Asimov proposed a simple shibboleth for distinguishing chemists from non-chemists: ask the person to read the word “unionized”. Chemists, he noted, will read un-ionized (electrically neutral), while non-chemists will read union-ized (belonging to a trade union).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      As a leftist chemistry teacher, I read it as “having attained union”, rather than “not ionized”, so YMMV with this heuristic

      ETA: (also, yeah, I have excellent job security until all public schools are abolished in the US)

  • Vanth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1121 hours ago

    My initial thought was “would chemists theoretically be less into labor protections than plumbers”?

    I guess that puts me in a third bucket.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Am a chemist in your group. I read it the plumber way too. Took me several seconds to get it.

  • @rockSlayer
    link
    English
    201 day ago

    If you don’t think about it very hard, solidarity is basically macro ionization

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    What about ChemE then? They’re both. Sort of. Okay maybe they’re not chemists, but… chemistry-adjacent.