• TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      15 days ago

      It was brought up in the movie, “Lincoln”, that the “Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection” by Charles Darwin was already published at the height of the US Civil War. Somehow, I disassociate the two events as being on completely different time period.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Lincoln and Darwin were born in the same year, 1809.

        And to really blow your mind: Charles Dickens was born 3 years later, and not, say, a hundred years before.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        He was visiting the US

        Edit: also Lincoln would have had to traveled to Paris or Lyon the last year of his life to send a pentelegraph (early fax machine) and said samurai would need to be in the other city to receive it. Not impossible technically, but Lincoln only left the US very briefly at Niagea Falls, never traveled to Europe. So it’s possible, but unlikely.

  • homoludens@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    If you were born in 1976 or earlier, your birthday is closer to the production of the Ford Model T than it is to today. Have a nice day :)

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      16 days ago

      Per the link it isn’t clear if she wanted to sue or if it was her caretaker and legal representation. I really hope it wasn’t her idea.

        • Contentedness@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          15 days ago

          Huh, I never read too much into it but it definitely sounds like that might be the case.

          This Billboard article from the time of the 2005 legal settlement mentions:

          "The settlement ends a legal dispute that some of Parks’ own relatives had criticized, saying she wouldn’t have minded the use of her name in the song “Rosa Parks” had she not been mentally impaired. "

          “After that lawsuit was filed, some of Parks’ relatives began questioning her well-being and the actions of her caretaker and the lawyers who filed the suit, and alleged she is probably unaware of the lawsuits.”

          So perhaps while she did technically live long enough to sue OutKast, she was suffering from dementia at the time and it’s possible that she was unaware of the actions taken in her name.

          The more you know!

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 days ago

        It really shouldn’t be TOO surprising, but she was a bit of a fighter. Particularly when it came to her civil rights in most matters, but also in reguard to her own name and likeness.

  • nuxi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    15 days ago

    At no point in my HS history class did our teacher mention that she was alive and living a few hours away from us.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      To be fair, I’d say teaching you guys should be proof enough of her non-corpse status that she didn’t have to tell you outright 🤷

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    16 days ago

    What always gets me is Pablo Picasso died in 1973. For some reason I always thought he was around a century or two earlier.

  • Peppr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    16 days ago

    I’m an older millennial, born 1984, recently turned 40.

    My gramps was born 1909. Not only was he alive during WW2, he was of fighting age. Not only did he fight in WW2, he was actually one of the oldest guys in his unit, seeing as he was over 30 when he got drafted.

    WW2 and other first half of the 20th century shit isn’t anywhere as far back in time as it feels it is.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      I remember my great-grandma talking about picking cotton in the field one day, and being scared out of her mind when an airplane flew over her head. She’d come to Texas from California on a covered wagon, had never lived in a home with electricity, and hadn’t heard about the flying machine being invented.

      I helped her set up an email account about a year before she died.

  • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    Same year as Barbara Walters. But also Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly. Yasser Arafat. Ed Asner. June Carter Cash. And, famousbirthdays.com tells me, TikTok’s Gangsta Grandma.

    Edit: They were all born the same year Wyatt Earp died.

  • TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    16 days ago

    Your title got me too.

    I’ve always found it interesting how a black and white photo can distort our perception of when something happened.

    Was researching million man March for a presentation. Some of the first pictures were in bnw even though it happened in the 90s.

    My conspiracy side says it’s deliberate. 🤷‍♂️

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      16 days ago

      Black and white film remained popular for decades after color film because it had different properties and could be easier to work with. Some photographers also preferred the aesthetic. Before digital photography became as good as film, B&W continued to be used in professional photography.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 days ago

      It’s not film, but the Apple II (1971) used a monochromatic display or something for technical reasons. I’m trying to find the quote but unfortunately I can’t so this is from memory. It was something like going with black and white allowed them a better frame rate/resolution over color (and for cheaper).

      It’s possible similar tradeoffs existed for monochromatic film into the '90s.

      • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 days ago

        The Apple II’s big selling point, compared to the other two big brands introduced in 1977 (the Radio Shack TRS-80 and Commodore PET) was colour.

        But it was a weird and colour scheme that took advantage of clever Wozniak hacks to make it viable on a cheap machine. Good video hardware, and enough memory for the colour display, were spendy. That’s why even into the 1980s you’d have machines like the ZX Spectrum with limitations like “every 8x8 block can only have 2 colours” which used less memory, and 40-column screens that were readable on TVs instead of dedicated high-res monitors…

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          15 days ago

          Maybe I’m getting it confused with a different apple computer then besides the apple 2. I definitely have seen a clip talking about this. Maybe the original iMac or something.

  • PrimeMinisterKeyes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    'Member that song “74-75” by The Connells? That was a big hit in the Nineties.
    We’re now at 31 years after the release of this single and 49 years after the class of 1975 graduated.