• AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
    11·
    2 days ago

    How can they be so relevant? See, nothing actually ever changes, ancient greeks were complaining about the same stuff as we are today.

  • AFK BRB Chocolate (CA version)@lemmy.ca
    22·
    2 days ago

    Growing up, my parents didn’t let us have stuff at the dinner table, and we were expected to be home for dinner unless there was something special going on. I never really thought much about it at the time, but since then I’ve known so many people whose families didn’t eat together normally and I feel like the difference is meaningful.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      8·
      2 days ago

      what’s funny is that I built that into my routine and I try to have conversations during family get-togethers

      My parents seem to have broken that routine when smartphones came about will check their phone at the dinner table … my brother just has Reddit out all the time and scrolls if he feels the slightest bit bored. His kids are watching YouTube on the TV but they like talking … but he doesn’t feel the need to engage. His wife doesn’t seem to be all that engaged. Could be either due to him being on his phone all the time or doesn’t have much to say …

      • AFK BRB Chocolate (CA version)@lemmy.ca
        9·
        2 days ago

        We weren’t allowed to have the TV on at dinner, either. And it was okay if no one had anything to say, but usually people did.

        I think those things are pretty unhealthy behavior.

  • brsrklf@jlai.lu
    18·
    2 days ago

    This is related to one of those ridiculous pet peeves of mine. You know, for a couple months I’ve been subscribing to a (decent) newspaper as my main source of serious info. Including the old school medium made of tree, because, why not (I get access to the website format too, of course).

    I don’t understand how it evolved to be made in that form factor, and why it is still being done that way. Like a feaking all-encompassing wallpaper of text held upright 30cm from your face.

    Here I am trying to read it in a sane way by folding it every way until I can get the part I’m trying to read semi comfortably. You know, not like Mr Douchebag in that comic. It’s so uselessly annoying.

    • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 day ago

      I don’t understand how it evolved to be made in that form factor, and why it is still being done that way.

      I have semi good news for you. There are several sizes of newspaper, however, some newspapers are only available in certain sizes.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_format#Sizes_and_aspect_ratios

      • Broadsheet 749 mm × 597 mm (29.5 in × 23.5 in) (1.255 aspect ratio)
      • Nordisch 570 mm × 400 mm (22 in × 16 in) (1.425 aspect ratio)
      • Rhenish around 520 mm × 350 mm (20 in × 14 in) (1.486 aspect ratio)
      • Swiss (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) 475 mm × 320 mm (18.7 in × 12.6 in) (1.484 aspect ratio)
      • Berliner 470 mm × 315 mm (18.5 in × 12.4 in) (1.492 aspect ratio)
      • Tabloid 430 mm × 280 mm (17 in × 11 in) (1.536 aspect ratio)
      • Demitab (half tabloid) 200 mm × 270 mm (8 in × 10.5 in) 1.3125 aspect ratio. “Magazine format”, though many magazines are larger. Used by The Economist.

      perhaps your physical newspaper is available in an alternate size?

    • morto@piefed.socialEnglish
      24·
      2 days ago

      I don’t understand how it evolved to be made in that form factor, and why it is still being done that way.

      Probably for being easier, cheaper and faster to produce in printing press machines. If you made the sheets smaller, you’d end needing to make much more cuts and it would also be harder to hold many smaller sheets together without some sort of binding

    • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOP
      51·
      2 days ago

      I’m having a little trouble tracking it down, but the AI summary (so take with a grain of salt) says this specific strip was published August 28, 1969.

  • WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
    12·
    2 days ago

    I know it’s a product of its time, but I fail to see how that would make anybody in her position any happier.

    • W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      10·
      2 days ago

      Go talk to a wall, then talk to the same wall with a framed photo on it.

      Guaranteed the frame photo wall will feel better tot talk to.

      Want the modern day equivalent? Talk to someone on zoom/teams/etc with their camera off and realize how difficult that convo is.

      • WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
        22·
        2 days ago

        Either way, you’re still actually communicating with someone in your modern day example so I don’t see how that applies.

        Talking to the wall vs a picture? I doubt it would make a difference to me personally, but I know I can be very matter-of-fact in how I look at things so my perspective might be different than most. Still seems like the improvement would be extremely minimal.

        Thanks for the explanations nonetheless.