Honestly just look up "Neil Degrasse Tyson annoying" and I am sure you'll find plenty of examples and summaries. But it honestly boils down to his delivery and projected self image.
Makes sense, as there are at least 5 posts in just this one image. Really pumping those numbers.
I am personally someone who is annoyed by NDT. But I am not convinced his actions are net negative, and think the opposite is more likely. Folks who find him insufferable and also don't develop a passion for science probably aren't dissuaded from entering the field as a whole because of this one annoying guy. However, kids who find one season of Cosmos interesting or only see 5 of his tweets may actually develop a love for science before realizing that NDT is annoying. He'd be a much better role model, reach more people, and make the science community look better if he was better, but that doesn't make him bad when there are literally anti-science advocates out there. We need all the celebrity scientists we can get as long as they aren't actively doing harm in my opinion.
Edit: also, the number of ragebait debates he has started that get other folks talking about science isn't insignificant. He's probably gotten some people into science just so they could shut guys like him up lol
Listen to a record, read (books, comics, articles, anything), walk, watch TV, cook, text a friend, maybe even play a level of Portal or a word game, or just lie down if that's the mood.
Obviously the thing that makes least sense in the image is Darth Vader visiting the beach. All that coarse sand, it gets everywhere!
Much like unpaid internships, this is also a method to prevent anyone who is not independently wealthy from applying, so they can fill the department with the same people already benefiting from the current system and allow them to design one that benefits them even further.
No one that this department is ostensibly built to serve can afford to work on it, so who is it really (clearly) for?
Ah, well that explains away one of the examples... You must be right! (I'd argue that the analysis of DNA is a thought/type of understanding, rather than the essence of a living thing, but that quickly gets towards another linguistic argument of Sausserian structuralism vs post structuralism.)
As a linguist, this is an interesting question, but a simple one. A-word is "ass.”
That definition could apply to a whole sentence (or novel), or a sound like "pfft." Or it could be an initialism, a movie rating, or an analyzed string of DNA. All these and more are letters arranged in a way as to convey thought.
"I heard that this media campaign directed kids to a porn site and made the star seem insufferable while alienating hardcore fans of the musical before the movie is even out, but what's the disaster?"
I mean I am sure there is more, OP, but does there even have to be?
Definitely depends on the details/levels of the shittiness and betterness. Is it like "you'll work really hard and be tired for pretty much all 20 years, but are guaranteed that part of "better" is being healthy and wealthy enough to deeply enjoy the next 30, guaranteed"? Or is it like real life, and you could die during year 21 after things have gotten 1% better?
My doctor said I can't go in the water for two weeks after my surgery.
I said that's ok, Doc, I prune up after just a few hours.
Do you value high fidelity (audio, visual, or other)? Do you notice a difference?
It often surprises me to see people with time, money, and knowledge settling for subpar experiences that have night and day differences to me. Even at my brokest (pretty darn broke), speakers, headphones, and glasses were always worth researching and some saving up, and the difference between what I'd end up with and the average always feels like it paid off tenfold.
I've got a surprising number of friends/acquaintances who just don't seem to care, though, and I am trying to understand if they just don't experience the difference similarly or if they don't mind. I know musicians who just continue using generation 1 airpods or the headphones included with their phone, birdwatchers who don't care about their binoculars, people who don't care if they could easily make their food taste better, and more examples of people who, in my opinion, could get 50% better results/experiences by putting in 1% more thought/effort.
When I've asked some friends about it, it sounds as much like they just don't care as they don't experience the difference as starkly as I do, but I have a hard time understanding that, as it's most often an objective sensory difference. Like I experience the difference between different pairs of binoculars and speakers dramatically, and graphical analysis backs up the differences, so how could they sound/look negligibly different to others? Is it just a matter of my priorities not being others' priorities, or do they actually experience the difference between various levels of quality as smaller than I seem to? What's your take on both major and, at the high end, diminishing returns on higher quality sensory experiences?
"Failed to retrieve Redgif video" error
Pretty much all posts linked to redgifs produce the same error, which messes with how the feed looks and loads. Incredibly grateful for all you've done with the app!