Diamond market

[whatyouneed@lemmy.world]

Considering more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, maybe a worthless symbol is fitting.

[jherazob@beehaw.org]

Ah, i misunderstood, yeah, there's got to be some rigging in that demo pic now that you mention it, however if Moissanite is essentially a drop-in replacement for diamonds in jewelry that is cheaper and looks even slightly nicer, which seems to be the case, then all should be well, doubly so if it kills the profits of De Beers. I'd ask to see the contrast IN PERSON if i was shopping for rings today though, nothing beats that.

[prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works]

Imagine

[test_tickles@lemmy.world]

Have you ever considered glitter as a starting point?

[i_dont_want_to@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

Moisannaite gives the most rainbows, and I think they are gorgeous.

But I do love the sparkle of diamonds, and sometimes prefer it. Fortunately synthetic ones are easy to come by.

[thebrideworecrimson@sopuli.xyz]

"See, our love is just like a diamond: Turns to coal under high pressure and to smoke when heated."

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

No no you guys have hobbies! You're valuable members of society and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[xthexder@l.sw0.com]

Diamonds turn to coal under pressure? I thought it was the other way around. i.e. formed from coal under high pressure.

The fact diamonds can burn is pretty crazy, but it makes sense since they're mostly (entirely?) carbon.

[mystikincarnate@lemmy.ca]

Ha. That's just how I am. I didn't notice that I did that.

I appreciate the kind words, fellow lemming, and I hope you have a wonderful day.

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

I like to call it Attention Surplus Disorder. It's crazy to me how most people can just focus on something for 50 hours a week that they're not interested in at all, and this doesn't set off warning bells in their head.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of antiwork neurotypucals, but it seems weird how many people actively support it.

[jargonwagon@lemmy.world]

I thoroughly enjoyed your in-depth analysis and learned a few things. I think we need to understand how to spot if something was written by AI or not, and this is very helpful for that.

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

I got married young too. My spouse didn't even get a ring for the proposal. Total cheapskate! So anyways, I said yes.

Once you're married and dealing with money together, cheapskate is a good thing. We had a minimalist inexpensive wedding.

[explodicle@sh.itjust.works]

The dismal science

[allero@lemmy.today]

The most suffering-free and eco-friendly ring is the one already made, so, you did the best thing!

[flyingsquid@lemmy.world]

I think so too, thank you.

[stinky@redlemmy.com]

to marry someone? you monster

[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.