Kabe

Now there’s an idea.

IMO, the first statement is half-stupid, the second one is half-overcomplicated :)

Welcome to English, my friend. No one ever claimed that it wasn’t a pain in the arse to learn :)

Lol well teaching this professionally surely makes me some form of authority (albeit of course not the authority!) on this subject.

To clarify, your original point sounded like you were making a distinction between metaphorical mirrors and actual mirrors:

“in the mirror” tends to more often refer to a metaphorical “mirror”, typically when discussing self-reflection

• “I took a look in the mirror and decided to change my ways.”

“in a mirror” tends to refer most often to actual mirrors that exist in reality, not metaphorically

• “I looked into a mirror to fix my eyeliner.”

This incorrect distinction is what I was objecting to, because of course we can use both the indefinite and definite articles to refer to either literal or figurative mirrors.

Nope, as I explained in my other comment, it’s standard usage.

In English, we often use the definite article when speaking in general about a specific activity or action that involves a non-specific object. E.g. “go to the bathroom” or “catch the bus”, or “read the newspaper”. It’s not poor form at all.

A fair guess, but this isn’t one of those times when a grammatical error becomes normalized through common usage.

There is no grammar rule that separates speaking literally versus metaphorically in this case.

“You have something on your face; go take a look in the mirror” is just as grammatically correct in English as “You need to take a good look in the mirror and change your ways.”

I’ve explained why this is standard usage in English in my comment here.

English teacher here. Articles in English can be really confusing but essentially we use the definite article in this situation because:

• Uniqueness: In most situations, there’s only one mirror in a room or a home that’s readily available for someone to look into.
• Generality: Similar to “going to the bathroom,” “look in the mirror” refers to the general act of using a mirror to see oneself, not interacting with any specific mirror.

Studio executives.

Not sure what the traffic has to anything - Siam Paragon is at the heart of Bangkok’s public transport system. Most people get there by train.

What is surprising is that a 14-year-old was allegedly the shooter and that he managed to get the gun through the metal detectors at the entrances.

The term is open to interpretation, but it certainly doesn’t simply refer to non-christians.

Some interpretations view the antichrist as a specific individual or figure who opposes Christ in some hypothetical, end of days type situation, while others see it as a broader symbolic representation of a certain figure or person that represents the complete opposite of Christ’s teachings or the spirit of Christianity.

“Anti” can mean “opposite” just as much as it can mean “against”.

American are just as bad. A similar thing happened to my wife last month.

She and a bunch of other passengers missed their connecting flights due to the airline’s incompetence. She stood in line for four hours, without food or water, to wait her turn for American to get her on another flight but as she neared the end of the line the staff closed up their desks and said “sorry folks, come back tomorrow” and walked off, leaving her and about 50 other people to basically sleep on the floor and wait for them to re-open five hours later.

No mention of finding them a place to stay, nor providing even a bite to eat. Zip. Nada.

While it’s not quite as bad as what these poor people went through, it’s the same “not my problem; sucks to be you” energy from the airline.

I know, lol. You know everyone is going to be fine, but the suspense is still excruciating.

It’s true for me.

The entire build-up to the Trinity test, the explosion and then the shockwave was awesome on a 50 foot tall IMAX screen. It wouldn’t have been the same just watching it at home.

I think so, but I’m no expert on the details of legal ownership.

@Dark_Arc@lemmy.world added a good comment here that explains the royalty free licensing.

The format actually has a lot of benefits - it supports transparency, animation, and compresses very efficiently. So it could theoretically replace GIF, JPG, and PNG in one fell swoop.

The downsides are that many apps don’t currently support it and that it’s owned by Google.

Personally I use webp for images that are not intended to share (e.g. banners and images on my blog), but stick to JPG/PNG for sending to other people.

Tidal doesn’t pay that much better; no streaming services do.

If payouts to artists matter to you then buy their music outright from platforms like Bandcamp and Qobuz rather than stream their music for peanuts.

Because modern cinema is saturated with CGI, to the point where audiences are becoming desensitized to it. Unless it’s done really well, it also tends to feel less realistic than practical effects.

Being able to actually create a real representation of a nuclear explosion and filming it, rather than just shooting in front of green screen and adding it in post-production, takes a lot more dedication and skill.

Not in the slightest. The entire build-up/explosion/shockwave sequence on 70mm IMAX is one of the greatest cinematic experiences I’ve ever had.

Nolan is known for wanting to shoot as much as possible in-camera, partly because he loves to shoot on film rather than rely on digital effects. I think that’s admirable.

I thought the entire film was excellent. Zero complaints whatsoever.

The Thai government never asked for Elon’s help - he volunteered following a tweet by a twitter user who suggested that he help.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44779998

Also, his solution was never viable to begin with - the rescue organizers said straight away that the submersible would be useless in the cave environment.

If you think journalists routinely delve into extensive, detailed investigations based off a simple press release then I would say you’ve been watching too many movies.

I somehow doubt that you hold media sources that align with your own political persuasions to such exacting scrutiny.

No, it wouldn’t. Journalists report on the content of upcoming lawsuits all the time. It’s up for the law courts to decided the validity of legal claims being made, not the media.