If making posters is outside of the scope of their normal job duties as it had previously been defined, then yes, absolutely I'd expect them to be paid extra.
Just because they're on payroll and being paid for their time doesn't mean you can instruct them to do anything you ask.
I assure you, a retail workers job description includes doing all sorts of things, many much less pleasant than making signs. I guarantee you the employee assigned to sign making was happy to be doing that over cleaning the bathroom.
And besides, this is the U.S. Unless you’re in a union, responding to legitimate, legal and business-related tasks from your employer (that don’t exceed your ability to accomplish, e.g. not lifting 100lbs or whatever) with “not in my job description” will get you canned.
The author, Bruno Dias, has a blog[1] where he often discusses games and game design, especially from a narrative perspective; he worked as a Narrative Designer for Failbetter, the studio that did the Fallen London/Sunless Seas/Sunless Skies games. I check in on it somewhat regularly, he organizes his thoughts on the topic quite well.
Another really good and interesting film adaptation of Shakespeare is "Scotland, PA" - Macbeth, set against the backdrop of a 1970s fast food restaurant featuring a soundtrack that consists entirely of Bad Company songs (apparently the library was shockingly inexpensive?) and Christopher Walken as an inspired Detective Macduff.
I think there's a lot of value in going back to examine the original text in school, but adaptations can do a lot to help students connect the idea that this story has characters and motivations that are human and resonate even outside the context of whatever the setting of the original play is.
I think I like the term "thickness" over "depth" here because thickness implies a sort of solidity, an ability to stand up to being held and examined, turned over and and handled. Depth can feel unapproachable (the ocean is pretty deep and it is famously challenging to explore) while something which has thickness intuitively feels like you can walk right up to it and try to learn something.
This doesn't hold for all things - I would, for example, describe a wine as having "depth" but probably not "thickness" because in the case of potables "thickness" also implies a particular sort of textural feel, but I do like the idea of a piece of art as being thick with meaning as opposed to deep. A book which is deep can be reread multiple times, but a book which has thickness just sounds like a book that can live on your bookshelf and be paged through year after year for decades, with not only the content to support it but also the sturdiness to hold up to the use.
Something I learned recently and which this article sort of hints at - look at the three drafts of Under The Wave Off Kanagawa. The composition is different, but also the colours are much more muted. In the first draft, the only colours highlighted are the people in the corner; in the second, the cliffs. The third draft finally colours the wave, but it's a sedate grey-blue. It's not until the fourth draft that everybody recognizes that we get this brilliant dark blue wave rising up over the the boat, dwarfing the mountain in the background.
And that's because when Hokusai sat down to print that fourth draft, people had recently started exporting prussian blue dye to Japan; prior to that point, he just straight up didn't have access to that striking blue colour that dominates the print.
Babies have no guile or instinct to deceive; they literally can't even conceive of doing so because their worldview just isn't developed enough. So when your baby cries, you can have absolute faith that it's because there's some problem that needs solving or need that is unmet, and then you can go and solve the problem, fill the need, and the baby is happy. And when the baby's happy, you have absolute faith that it's because you were there doing the thing. There's no pretense to the relationship at all, and it's a sort of unusual honesty that can be really hard to find in relationships where both parties understand basic facts like "there is a world of people outside myself" and "people don't have special insight into my interior being and I can give them information that doesn't fully reflect the state of the world".
So that kind of honest exchange does a lot to foster love and adoration from you to the child, and the fact that you're there providing food, shelter, comfort et all to the baby fosters love and adoration from them to you.
My kid is just under 18 months old now. He's old enough to have distinct ideas about what he wants to do, and when he wants to do it, and he's old enough to understand that not getting to do the thing that he wants is really upsetting, so he cries. That's hard sometimes. But if I'm relaxing on the couch and he brings a book over to me, I can know with absolute faith that it's because right now, what he wants more than anything in the world is to sit in my lap and have me read a book to him, and that feels amazing. When he goes and hides behind the kitchen island and then jumps out, it's because the thing he wants to do more than anything else is play peekaboo with me, and that feels amazing too.
Merriam-Webster seems to specifically disagree with you on both points: the usage of "a" vs "an" is based on the sound of the following word, and "hour" is preceded by "an" since it sounds like a vowel despite starting with a consonant.
> You should use a when the word that follows sounds like it begins with a consonant (‘a dog,’ ‘a balloon’). You should use an if the word that follows sounds like it begins with a vowel (‘an ant,’ ‘an elevator’). Remember that sometimes a word will begin with a vowel but it sounds like a consonant (‘a one-time deal’); in this case you should still use a, rather than an. And in some cases a word will start with a consonant but it sounds like a vowel (’an hour’); in this case you should still use an, rather than a. [1]
That's interesting only for the fact I recall it being taught different or perhaps missed that all through school. Being based on sound brings yet another aspect of english into the nightmarish realm. My mind races to the many words around my locale and various circles of people I worked around where the lead vowel is silent / near silent ... words like articulate and yet aware that some do go to the effort to pronounce with a high emphasis on the lead vowel like they are were educated / lived elsewhere.
Of course there is the other can of worms of debating whether Y is a vowel or not. Also, “YouTube” sounds like it starts with “u” sound, despite starting with “y”.
Maybe English is just broken. Words starting with a long “u” sound make me question the rule - different than other long vowels…
There isn’t really any debate about “Y” - it acts as a vowel in most cases, and as a consonant in some cases, particularly at the beginning of a word, as in “Youtube”. The “you” sound is a consonant sound, and that also answers the ukulele question: it’s “a ukelele”, because it’s the sound that matters here.
Using a more familiar example might help illustrate this: we say “a user”, not “a user”; similarly, it’s “a European”, not “an European”.
You may be interested in the novella "The Ballad of Black Tom", which is a re-telling of "The Horror at Red Hook" from the perspective of the immigrants in the New York slum, and why they decide that maybe dealing with eldritch horrors is a better alternative than trying to reason with this detective that keeps on hassling them for no reason.
It looks like all three Borla ATAK catbacks for the GR Corolla are active exhuasts[0], so you can dynamically switch between quiet operation and loud operation.
Just because they're on payroll and being paid for their time doesn't mean you can instruct them to do anything you ask.
reply