
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I think that any word or phrase that constantly looms before your eyes can acquire a touch of banality, lose its attractiveness, lose its “salt”. It's like in W. Schefner's poem about Words:
Yes, I haven't seen such a question yet.
And here's what: “Take care of nature, otherwise you will ruin yourself!”, and for example, in 10 (or maybe 20) of the most common languages (as well as Esperanto).
Of course, to realize this, you need to be a God. You need to move the stars so that they line up in the inscription. And if there are not enough bright stars, then zoom in on the dimmer ones (as they are visible from Earth, and not really dim). Supergiants should not be particularly close: they tend to explode (this is called a supernova). A close supernova explosion – it won't seem too small. The most common stars are red dwarfs. To make them even visible as second-magnitude stars, you will have to zoom in so much that they will affect the orbits of planets and other bodies in the Solar System, so they should also not be touched. What remains are more massive main-sequence stars, as well as giants (but not supergiants).
Yes, and the stars will no longer be called “such and such a star of such and such a constellation”, but “such and such a star of such and such a letter, syllabus, hieroglyph of such and such a word”.
Or maybe better glowing geostationary satellites?