• smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    1 day ago

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

  • LordTrychon@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day 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).

    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      24 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@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    I guess that puts me in a third bucket.

  • ornery_chemist@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

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