A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
It's that time of year again where Santa brings the gifts of Summer to our blessed shores. Stay safe, stay hydrated.
This is an AI generated art piece, if you'd like to see more Aussie themed AI art let me know below, if you'd like to see more of my work you can find me over on the main lemmy AIgen communities or via the links below,
See more: https://civitai.com/user/lorom
Referral link: https://civitai.com/login?ref_code=LOR-IYG
Joke killer:
Flame - fire.
Flammable - has the potential to be set on fire. (eg. burn, ember, catch)
Inflame - to burst into fire.
Inflammable - has the potential to burst into fire. (eg. explode, detonate, erupt)
Non-flammable - cannot result in flame.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Blame the Ancient Greeks for this wonderful bit of English.
Oh, so that's why the doctors had to remove my appendix!
But going back to being serious. My understanding is that the use of the term "flammable" basically only arose as an attempt to remove the ambiguity caused by the "in" prefix in "inflammable". Many organisations now prefer to avoid the term inflammable in favour of flammable for precisely that reason.
[Source]
It's a 400 year time period, you could make just about any valid excuse for the use of either, both have been used together for 200 years, and inflame is older than inflammable by 200 years.