djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 29 Jan 17:08
nextcollapse
Onionized
BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
on 29 Jan 19:31
nextcollapse
Ah, because of the ions.
Took me eons.
LordTrychon@startrek.website
on 29 Jan 20:27
nextcollapse
In his essay “To Tell a Chemist” (1965), Asimov proposed a simple shibboleth for distinguishing chemists from non-chemists: ask the person to read the word “unionized”. Chemists, he noted, will read un-ionized (electrically neutral), while non-chemists will read union-ized (belonging to a trade union).
threaded - newest
If you don’t think about it very hard, solidarity is basically macro ionization
What about ChemE then? They’re both. Sort of. Okay maybe they’re not chemists, but… chemistry-adjacent.
Here’s a version without the bad crop, comedy homicide, pointless circle around the punchline, and puritanical censoring
<img alt="" src="https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20/images/8ab2ac7a0daa3f0e0353f280e9f3c6e588d9c168c765a598523a6039ef8a3e6f_1.jpg">
thanks
Onionized
Ah, because of the ions.
Took me eons.
In his essay “To Tell a Chemist” (1965), Asimov proposed a simple shibboleth for distinguishing chemists from non-chemists: ask the person to read the word “unionized”. Chemists, he noted, will read un-ionized (electrically neutral), while non-chemists will read union-ized (belonging to a trade union).
Or some will say it’s spelled incorrectly
My initial thought was “would chemists theoretically be less into labor protections than plumbers”?
I guess that puts me in a third bucket.
Am a chemist in your group. I read it the plumber way too. Took me several seconds to get it.
Good luck finding the chemistry teacher, though.
As a leftist chemistry teacher, I read it as “having attained union”, rather than “not ionized”, so YMMV with this heuristic
ETA: (also, yeah, I have excellent job security until all public schools are abolished in the US)
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.