Diamond market

[stinky@redlemmy.com]

right? who cares who wrote it. it's a hobby post, not a dissertation

[fool@programming.dev]

Means a lot! Thank you! (˶ˆᗜˆ˵) ✧

[uid_zero@infosec.pub]

Yes, but a clear crystal is a clear crystal.

No, different materials have different refractive indices, even if they're both "clear crystals." Maybe the examples given are very close in refractive index, but they still differ, therefore split light differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices

I'm not saying it's the entire difference, but it certainly comes into play. It could be that the more "explosive" light example is cut identically, but held slightly askew versus the others.

Point is, it's not just the cut that impacts the result.

[mentaledge@sopuli.xyz]

...

That's literally my point.

I'm saying you can't tell the difference between two materials unless they are cut the same.

If they are cut differently to achieve the results you are seeing, you can't tell whether the difference is because of the cut, or because of the material.

[exasperation@lemm.ee]

Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests.

When the interest at issue is human relationships and social norms, I think it flips the other way around.

Better to characterize things by what type of interests tend to appeal to which.

[comment105@lemm.ee]

Initially inflated and overwhelming, completely

[comment105@lemm.ee]

Your wife sounds absolutely lovely.

[comment105@lemm.ee]

You literally can not expect them to understand.

[comment105@lemm.ee]

I gotta be honest, some of you

[soleinvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

My wife and I, very early in our relationship, bought cheap tungsten carbide rings to prank my parents by telling them we had eloped. When we actually did get married, we decided to use those same rings. I like her.

[uid_zero@infosec.pub]

That makes sense. It wasn't coming across in the earlier comments.

[buddahriffic@lemmy.world]

How many world wars were fought in the last century? The answer might surprise you!

[exasperation@lemm.ee]

I think for most people it's just a matter of tradeoffs. You don't have to be interested in the act of doing something in order to be interested in the consequence of doing that thing.

Someone who doesn't like driving may still drive, and concentrate on driving the entire time, to get to a destination where they want to end up. For someone who doesn't like to cook but wants to eat hot food, cooking is a means to that end.

Now, if you're saying that you don't think that tradeoff is worth it to you, maybe that's true of them if they stop to think about it, too. But I'm not sure that's what's going on for most people who continue to work jobs they don't like.

[jackbydev@programming.dev]

Idk, dude. I've met people I swear are autistic but social but they're overly rigid about social norms and being polite. I don't buy itwhat you're saying. Anyone can be interested in anything.

[helpimtrappedonline@lemmy.world]

If by last century, you mean 1900-1999; 2

If you mean in the last 100 years; 1. Which is honestly impressive all things considered.

[buddahriffic@lemmy.world]

Yeah only question for me right now is if it will go to 0 or 2 before going back to 1.

[uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

It was weird to me, when I was looking for rings and jewelry that there are gems that have a higher brilliance and luster than diamonds (and unlike super-fancy bright glass is actually robust enough for typical use). And yet, the folks that want diamonds want diamonds. Since around 2016 after seeing the Mnuchins in the news, it felt like conflict diamonds and slave-mined diamonds are in.

[arcaneslime@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Don't limit yourself, could go to 2 and then 3 instead of back to 1.

[exasperation@lemm.ee]

Anyone can be interested in anything.

Yeah, but I'm responding to a comment that says that neurotypical people aren't curious or passionate about the things they're interested in, and I think that's too narrow of a way to define "interest."

I'd reject that way of thinking because that principle could be weaponized to accuse some neurodivergent people of not caring about people by misreading why they might not be great with social cues or things like that.

[areasix@lemm.ee]

Well, we do label everything nice as "exclusive", as in excluding others from ownership. So how nice things are deemed to be seems to be fuelled by pure spite for other people. You can't have it, so it's "exclusive", meaning good and desirable. Our values in modern societies are just awful and misanthropic.