• 0 Posts
  • 101 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 23rd, 2023

help-circle

  • enkers@sh.itjust.worksto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonerule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s definitely part of it, but the lb dates way back to before there was any conception of difference between weight and mass. Nowadays, the kg, and thus the U.S. lb, is defined in terms of universal constants (the Planck constant and the speed of light), but traditionally the lb would have been defined by some sort of standard physical object, whereas the kg was defined as the mass of a litre of water. There was an implicit reliance on the force of earths gravity in the measure of the lb, which wasn’t part of the measure of the mass of a kg. So, I think historically speaking it’s understandable to think of the lb as a unit of weight, not mass.


  • enkers@sh.itjust.worksto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonerule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    They were thinking that lbs and kgs are different types of measure:

    Lbs measuring weight, which is characterized by the amount of gravitational force applied, and having SI units kg⋅m⋅s⁻² . And kg measuring mass, which is an intrinsic property characterized by the sum of all of an object’s atom’s masses, and having SI units kg.

    But they realized in the U.S. a lb is now directly defined by a mathematical proportion to the kg, and therefore is now a measure of mass, not weight. Thus, they are indeed the same type of measure.




  • enkers@sh.itjust.workstoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This is why I’m not stingy with upvotes. They may just be imaginary internet points, but if I can make somebody’s day a little bit better by clicking a a button, why not?

    I usually upvote everything in the comment chain above me and anyone who replies, unless it’s a particularly bad take.

    If we want Lemmy to be an enjoyable place to have discussions, it’s good to spread some love, ya feel?








  • It doesn’t personally bother me, so long as it remains in the minority of posts. Couple of reasons:

    a) It often reminds me of some of the good boys I’ve lost, and of the good times we had. It’s a bit bittersweet, but it doesn’t have to be a mood kill. I acknowledge if you’ve lost a pet very recently, it’ll hit a lot harder, but this is going to happen regardless as you process your grief.

    b) I’d prefer to be part of a community that’s not continually mood-checking each other. Life has ups and downs, and everyone is better off if the community can occasionally offer some consolation in the hard times. Expecting only happiness from everyone always seems like toxic positivity to me.

    c) Offering a word of support can make me myself feel better. It can be a good deed for the day, and it’ll make me feel closer to the community.

    d) I don’t think having a bit of a memento mori is necessarily bad. Being reminded that our time with our companions is limited can also remind us to cherish that time all the more.

    I do think there’s a caveat, though. While loss is an inevitable part of animal companionship, it’s very unfair if I only share my grief. If I enjoy the community and want to keep it healthy, then I should be proactive in generally posting uplifting content before I ever consider asking the community for their sympathy.

    Also, personally, if I’m going to share a memorial post, I think it’d be best if it can be a celebration of my pet’s life, and show how they had a good, and happy one.