Good example of how cutting in video footage decides what story it tells

Thank god I’m not a patient then ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Thanks, many interesting facts for anyone who can’t be bothered to click the link but like to know more:

Most of the finer sort of medieval manuscripts, whether illuminated or not, were written on vellum. Some Gandhāran Buddhist texts were written on vellum, and all Sifrei Torah are written on kosher klaf or vellum.

A quarter of the 180-copy edition of Johannes Gutenberg’s first Bible printed in 1455 with movable type was also printed on vellum, presumably because his market expected this for a high-quality book. Paper was used for most book-printing, as it was cheaper and easier to process through a printing press and to bind. The twelfth-century Winchester Bible was also written on approximately 250 calfskins.

In art, vellum was used for paintings, especially if they needed to be sent long distances, before canvas became widely used in about 1500, and continued to be used for drawings, and watercolours. Old master prints were sometimes printed on vellum, especially for presentation copies, until at least the seventeenth century.

Nice. Kudos for speed too! (At the time of writing the post is 9h old and still i received the provided context within 5 minutes of commenting. 💯)

Did they really make parchment from hides?? I’m so confused by this, would a book be even usable with pages that thick?

It’s good to question intent of any op. I’m personally was also really happy with the no schadenfreude rule, so no downvotes from me. This feels as the maximum level of political news for me, but because there is less of that here lately my tolerance has grown as well.

This would be schadenfreude to me if the point was to discredit the politician / the party in question. I can’t tell if that is the intent, but maybe if i had a different world view (and thought she did something bad), i could have.

I don’t feel this is the best article on this topic for this community either, but ‘politician asks criminals to stand up for the vulnerable’ isn’t schadenfreude in my books

This account has just been created, this is the only post of this user and this is not the first time I’ve seen an ad for this website on lemmy. It’s not appreciated.

FYI youre allowed to crop your screenshots before uploading (･ω･)

Quite likely their initials are A.I.

SInce my comment above got a downvote shortly after placing it, here’s what Mikayla Raines actually looks like ffs

I would upvote but seeing how many communities you just spammed with this i surely am not going to anymore. Imagine everyone did this when they considered something important.

Will the cost of insurance and tax not outweigh the cost of a (monthly) ticket? And (especially older) cars must pass EU controls regularly for them to be road legal.

I have no clue on prices of tickets, taxes or insurance in Denmark. My point mainly being less cars on the road is better for everyone.

Don’t get me wrong, i am happy for those people. They deserve to have a home. My point is there is only so much space, so if there is no space for parking then that means there are too many cars. So next up is fixing the parking crisis by making car ownership less attractive.

They have a point though, i hope this gives portland extra reason to make the city more walkable (because there is obviously no space for cars)

And here I thought only ai could come up with this kind of stuff

During rush hour, for a lot of people that means 2 tickets a day, four times a week. Those savings on their own might not convince someone to buy a car but there will be people who have no car now consider that an additional benefit. I was not saying this is the best way to spend your money as a government, i was also not saying that this will mean a lot of cars will be bought because of this.

I disagree on this: “One step forward, one step backwards. Somehow, Denmark manages to make public transportation benefit only the people who need it the least.”

I’m not saying it does benefit the people who need it the most, but this artificially boost demand for public transport which makes more funding more responsible. Also because it artificially lowers demand for roads it makes it easier to ‘sell’ not investing in roads.

What is a bad thing about this though, is that it might make it more appealing for people who use public transport to own cars.

Afghanistan lasted 20 years, so them having to renew every 10 years might be true

It’s an equally good reason for starting wars I guess