I disagree with it being heroic, but i really appreciate the sentiment. I imagine more people would do it if it was more affordable. I’ve gotten some flack from my family for it being costly (minimal flack, more like a double check), but it’s worth it (and they understand once i explain it).
I spent a lot of money to install solar, got new efficient windows, and got a heat pump to reduce gas usage. I’m thankful to have the financial freedom to make these decisions, as well as to have referrals for affordable options.
We’re trying to be better about plastic usage and waste in our household.
I did these to reduce my energy usage. They’ll save money long term eventually, but not enough to be worth it monetarily. I can’t control much but i can at least try to do what i think is better.
Ha, i am somewhat familiar with the genre, i just wanted to contribute :) studied ancient rome, so that is legit what i typically think of when i hear goth.
To me, goths are the people who sacked Rome in 410. None of this makes sense to me.
Looks like the label says blueberry
I think they’re referencing the manga/anime death note. So they’re just writing in the names of countries hoping they will die.
Did a light google search, looks like the individual is the former prime minister of poland (between ww1 and ww2), and a fairly prominent statesman, who I’m guessing hated those other countries.
Yeah true, maybe one day!
Living in the USA, my experience looking into this was similar. However, there are some doctoral programs in europe that are free even for international students, which is actually quite tempting.
Right, i think he’s asking if there’s some culture where the inconsistency is designed based on unit. So, for example, period for years, comma for weight.
I think it’s simply an error. Maybe AI generated?
I don’t think this is a particularly fair take. Some people bought at high prices because it seemed like the right move (in 2008, for example), market crashes, you’re stuck with your investment even if you’re underwater (upside down).
It’s definitely not fair to assume what his costs are compared to the cost to rent. It isn’t necessary to have the example above to reside in an area where mortgages far exceed rent. Northern Virginia in the USA is a good example, where townhomes can easily exceed 1 million USD, which would typically require a 30-50k+ down payment plus closing costs, and would then be 5k+ in a mortgage. Rent that place for 4500 and that’s a loss on monthly costs, but of course the landlord is earning long term equity (and that is the value, but they may not be turning a profit).
Edit: I’m simply stating that it’s unfair to assume the original commenter is lying about not making a profit. I’m not suggesting they aren’t experiencing a net gain in equity.
I don’t think it’s fair to flatly posit that since the CDC has been wrong at some point in the past, they can’t ever be trusted. While i understand the concept of don’t blindly follow words regardless of who said it, the sheer amount of research and dedication from an organization such as the CDC should count quite a bit more than the folks who have done none.
I don’t have the means to do such research, and as such i will more heavily weigh the words of the applicable research team than i will the words of someone who has no knowledge on the topic.
I think the question really should be not “have they ever been wrong,” but instead, “do i think they’re wrong on purpose.” A lot of research teams are funded by one side of an argument, which is cause for concern. The CDC is most likely not, and it would be fair to say they could be wrong, but likely not on purpose. Therefore i would say in this instance they are the more qualified experts who are also trying their best to be objective, and therefore, they likely have the more reasonable statement on this topic.
I’m not having a glass of wine, I’m having six. It’s called a tasting and it’s classy!
Now you’re making assumptions, and have already missed the point entirely. This would be the engage the community portion, not the get new members portion. It’s a long process. You can’t just proselytize at every moment, it simply doesn’t work that way anymore.
That isn’t the point though, it’s to first better engage the community, then preach later. there’s an art to proper outreach. Convince the community that you’re part of it, then they express interest in your organization. That’s when you go for it. If it’s all preaching all day, that simply won’t attract new members. And overly preachy metal music would probably chase almost everyone away. And who would want to hang out somewhere that’s just non-stop preaching? That sounds horrible
Not everything is completely black and white. In fact, that kind of exclusive thinking is what drives people away. The point here is to improve the image, encourage the community to get more engaged, and just be there. Potential new members will come along.
Honestly, the mindset of “why bother if you aren’t preaching” sounds very similar to a business caring only about its stocks. What about research? Quality control? Community outreach? Those things are important for a good company to thrive, as opposed to one looking only at short term profits. Look at what’s happening with Boeing. They’re focused on stocks only, the same way some churches only care about preaching. and their image is tanking, and everyone is wondering what happened.
If your goal is to acquire more members, then you need to find a way to reach other people in a way that makes sense to them, not you. Imagine trying to teach English to non English speakers. You don’t just do it randomly in the town square, spouting off the virtues of English speaking. you need to entice people to even want to not only learn English in the first place, but from you.
That’s the part I’m not understanding. So how do you recruit new members if you exclusively advertise to people that already agree with you? Your audience is explicitly people who already are part of your group, and that number continues to decline.
There are two groups to try to entice - current members who are losing interest, and non members who are currently non believers. If you only create events that are catering to current and active members, you alienate the others and won’t grow
Not sure I’m following your points here. You suggest that the church needs to keep and maintain a community, but doing things that attracts such potential members is inappropriate? I’m not really understanding what the idea to get new members is. Outreach and knowing your audience are important factors in growing a community.
One way to attract members is to showcase that the things that matter or are interesting (within reason) to potential members matters to the current members. People tend to be attracted to people that at least appear to understand them. Highlighting that everyone around you is wrong and doesn’t get it kind of pinpoints a major underlying issue with the church today.
Unfortunately, the reality is that every group needs a way to attract members and increase attendance. I’m providing one from 1400s Germany, and some areas in Germany are, to this day, prolifically religious (bavaria, for example). Maybe it turns out it was a good idea to do what you can to keep members?
I’m not from England, but i do pay a lot of attention to music and, broadly speaking, religion, and I’m not entirely sure this is a fair take. Places of worship are not traditionally meant to be exclusively worship zones; they can and should be places to engage the community. An example is that old (medieval) german churches traditionally gave free beer to their patrons as an incentive to attend mass. One major criticism of modern religion is their inability to adapt to modern youth, and this seems like a creative way to engage the community.
Additionally, a lot of “heavy metal” (which is separate from Rock) is basically classical scales but sped up and using distortion. For me personally, there’s a subgenre of metal that incorporates operatic vocalists that i find surprisingly fitting for such a sitting.
i think it could be a reference to saying no to plastic clothes hangers, since clothes hangers are an enormous source of plastic waste.
Edit: yes i understand the anti dangerous abortion symbolism, but here are some sources to explain the environmental impacts that are starting to gain some press.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plastic-hanger-fun-fact-20-billion-landfills-every-year-gary-barker
I don’t think it’s fair to assume, at best, an accident is negligence. There are numerous things that can lead to an accident that wouldn’t be negligence, such as normal wear and tear causing problems with something such as brakes or steering (perhaps not caught during routine maintenance as they weren’t issues at the time), something falling into the road (weather related, wildlife, erosion), a glitch of some kind (two green lights, not negligence necessarily) , or visibility issues (even cautious and solid drivers can be at risk during poor conditions). These are just some examples, but in the cases nobody involved would be at fault.
I believe the comparison to a gun is woefully inaccurate and invalid. Both are machines with the capacity to cause harm, but the similarities end there.
I appreciate it, thank you. Yeah fair points