And look at all the other dates others are giving me. They’re not the same as yours. THATS my point. No one actually agrees on the dates and at this point, it’s expanded to include other generations.
Yet I have 10 different people spouting different dates and all telling me I’m wrong. None of you see that you’re the exact point I was making. Everyone tries to shove in some extra years before or after.
Thank you, someone who gets it. The definition has expanded so much it’s essentially meaningless now.
When I grew up and the term was first coined, it refered to the generation coming after mine. It was literally “what will we call this next generation? Well, they’re growing up during the turn of the millennium…”. Then suddenly years later it included my generation. Then suddenly it includes the generation before me? When really it’s just a lazy replacement for “kids these days”.
You’re further proving my point. A person born in 1981 would be 18 years old in 1999. They will have had NONE of their childhood during the Millennium(unless you’re counting the very end of it)
Because every other “generation” is about 10 years and yet somehow “Millennials” are an almost 25 year gap. Notice how it’s “Older Millennial, younger millennial, etc”. You don’t use those qualifiers with the other generations because they are appropriately sized.
Millennials should be 2-3 named generations. It currently refers to 90s kids, any kids alive when 2000 happened, and early Aughts kids(probably because the last name sucked and no one wanted to use it).
The context that’s he’s supposed to be an annoying child? You’re really not getting that people can dislike a character that is “well done”. Yes, he’s well done… as an annoying child who tries to act like he’s on the same level as Picard and Riker. He’s the equivalent of internet comments.
Exactly. It doesn’t increase suicidal thoughts, it just reminds some that it’s an answer to their thoughts. The solution is reducing the stigma so that people can talk about them freely instead of bottling them up until they reach that point.
Yeah, we’re all talking about what unhinged dicks they are and wishing for them to be disbanded. Great job!
Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit. What I do care about it harsh penalties for the perpetrators(including community service and paying for the damage to be undone) and protecting heritage sites like this from other shitty humans. Its not activism, it’s vandalism. It has nothing to do with oil. It would be the same as setting the Mona Lisa on fire and screaming about oil. It’s just unhinged.
how physics works doesn’t necessarily dis prove the existence of a supreme being that designed the laws of physics
This is how Darwin felt about evolution. It was the answer to “how?”, not “why?”.
“He have” instead of “he has,” etc.
Then you meant to write “‘He has’ instead of ‘he have’”. You wrote it backwards. Thanks for the downvote for YOUR mistake.
Thanks. Figured it was a mistake.
WTF NO! You suggested that bullshit? I wondered why everything was so goddamn clunky.
“HE HAS”, NOT “HE HAVE”. And should be the ability.
The way it’s written now sounds EXACTLY like someone who’s first language ISNT English trying to teach someone else English. It’s butchered terribly.
This just links to a picture?
Exhibit A right here. If you disagree, you’re a troll/shill or Russian bot. Ffs people like you completely destroy meaningful discourse here and then you blame everyone else.
The echochamber formed fast and hard here. It’s really sad to see. It feels less like a new place and more like another clubhouse. And ffs, content is so slow. Gotta surf top of all time and still barely find content.
Nope, not a bot and anti-Biden registered Dem. You guys always want to Strawman anti-Biden comments as either “angry conservatives” or “Russian-psyops”. You don’t actually address the concerns either, just brush them off as trolls. Discourse on Lemmy is a echo-chambered joke already. It doesn’t need trolls to ruin it, you’ve done plenty well yourselves.
This is like the 3rd version of the article at this point. It’s mentioned in other articles. What is mentioned in this one is they used devices to pretend to be active during times they were expected to be. You know, fraud.
Cool, that wasn’t this.
They used company computers to do another companies work. That’s theft. Just like you want to comment on wage theft and the like, this is employee theft. Now, if you want to argue that it’s justified, that’s one thing. But don’t reframe this as “well they were just doing nothing anyways”. No, they used computers and resources that explicitly weren’t theirs for their own benefit. Sounds A LOT like the wage theft you want to complain about when it’s an employer doing it, but suddenly it’s ok when the tables are turned. Nah, it’s still an immoral act.
Lmao that’s not how “right to work” works. That’s how having a contract works lmao
Look around at the other comments like I said?
That’s MY point. It’s called reading comprehension.