Neither might it be important to your audience. Communication isn't usually about communicating what's important to the speaker but what's important to the listener.
And I say this as someone who constantly has to do summaries at the end of even my shorter sentences because I end up overexplaining things.
Vaping is banned in Singapore. You still see some people illegally possessing and vaping though.
And I venture to argue that because of the way politicians want to maintain their voterbases, it pushes his politics further and further into fascism.
Vocabulary presumably means learning the meaning of something, which means the parents must have been pretty dedicated in teaching the child the word "twelve" without poisoning their mind with knowledge of how to say any other numbers.
Alternatively, that child has learned twelve words today.
I think the criticism is that they're repeatedly publishing these and claiming they're outliers without attempting to show how they got their results, from what I'm reading.
I really hate his justification because it seems incredibly selfish and short-sighted. Imagine if he murdered someone and said it wasn't murder because it was art. It can be both, and society might also argue it is not art or should not normatively be art.
That was the prop money. I guess if they'd known he'd steal it, they would've used fake prop money instead.
I think the problem is this: the man was paid for his work. People don't seem to get that.
The deal was that he was paid an amount of money to make an art piece. That art piece was supposed to use another bunch of money as props. He was supposed to then give back the prop money after the exhibition was over.
When he made his work that used none of the money, that was fine. The museum rolled with it and gave him his dues. They didn't even ask for the prop money back when they realised he wasn't using it.
The problem is that he's now supposed to return the prop money that was to be used in the artwork, and he's refusing to.
He's already been paid, he's just being a shit to an organisation offering a public service.
It's a burn and also true. If a genetic mutation becomes prevalent enough, it's no longer really considered to be a "mutation".
Serious question: If you're not expecting a response, why put it on social media? It might be healthier to externalise some of your rants through other means and move away from the expectation that things need to be on social media for them to matter.
100% agree. And if the atheism community was just about sharing in their lack of belief, that would be fine.
However, atheist communities on the whole seem to be more focused on critiquing or mocking religion (probably because it's hard to make content around a lack of something): fundamentally you should have some knowledge of the religions you're criticising to not just seem uninformed.
As an atheist myself, such content just seems very cringey.
They said they spent another hour after launching, though - not sure you can launch without having interacted with the Nomai statue.