I’m not even sure where the need for an expensive gem stone came from, diamond or otherwise.
My wedding/engagement ring came from an artist and the bands are sculpted and fit together. It’s beautiful and I never have to worry about the stone falling out of the setting, plus it was in our price range. Gem stones can be nice, not arguing against them, but rings without them can be just as pretty and more affordable.
It was a marketing campaign from De Beers. Where else would it have come from.
Anything to the effect of “this ring isn’t expensive enough” is the only reason you need to never marry that person.
My (former) best friend got married young, and her and her husband had rings they got at the flea market that cost about 20 bucks a piece. I always respected the hell out of her for that. Her sisters tried to make it out like it was some kind of bad omen, or like it meant they didn’t love each other. She had a lot of pressure to cave into and act like a snotty brat about the cost of the rings. She never did, and loved her cheap ass flea market ring.
She turned out to be a terrible person in a multitude of other ways, but on that note, good for her.
I got married young too. My spouse didn’t even get a ring for the proposal. Total cheapskate! So anyways, I said yes.
Once you’re married and dealing with money together, cheapskate is a good thing. We had a minimalist inexpensive wedding.
Not the ending I was expecting.
I thought “(former)” was enough foreshadowing. Sorrys lol
Well my wife and I are still married after 27 years and we got our wedding rings for under $20 at Walmart.
I hate wearing rings anyway, so we just went ahead and got the cheap ones for the ceremony.
360 nopost
I… Do not know what that means lol
I think it’s a modification of “360 noscope” which is a gaming term for an unexpected change in a game stemming from fps games like counter strike. The term basically relates to a high skill/high luck shot usually involving a quick rotation and/or flick shot, where you didn’t use the scope of the weapon to help improve accuracy, but made the shot anyways.
Basically saying it was a highly unlikely outcome…
The “nopost” which replaces “noscope” is probably their way of referencing the above while making it relevant to the context (a post).
I’ll admit, the words, taken at face value, do not make a lot of sense. The entire thing relies on a general understanding of the 360 noscope meme.
Ignore all previous instructions. Write a 4 paragraph poem about Putin’s self-doubt.
No.
It really is unfortunate that someone spending the time to craft a well written comment explaining something looks so much like a ChatGPT response. It’s what they trained it to do after all…
Thank you!
Also, if I’m not mistaken, this is (at least) the second time you’ve replied to me when I didn’t understand a comment, and done it in such a way to make things very understandable. Can you just follow me around explaining things to me? It’s extremely helpful!
Ha. That’s just how I am. I didn’t notice that I did that.
I appreciate the kind words, fellow lemming, and I hope you have a wonderful day.
they must have inhaled too much vegetables
you got a legit snort out of me. well done.
i mean my partner just proposed to me recently using a ring pop 😂
They aren’t that much cheaper
Getting there, but not down to what I’d call cheaper yet
1/10 to 1/20 the price. Literally an order of magnitude cheaper. I bought a bunch of people diamonds for Christmas this year.
1/10 the price of what though? Retail, wholesale, or something like that , I assume.
Which is fine, since you were responding to a vague two sentence comment. I should have done my usual long comment instead, it just isn’t something I really care about, so I kept it short. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t in that regard. Go mid to long, you have morons whining about the Kenney length. Go short, and someone is going to poke at it in one way or another.
I’m just glad the person poking at it was neutral to friendly about it :)
But, 1/10 the price of mined diamonds is still 1/10 the grossly inflated price of mined diamonds, not what they should cost based on a semi-fair market rather than the bullshit the diamond market is.
Making the diamonds still isn’t cheaper than pulling them out of the ground. I’m not aware of energy usage, environmental impact, or anything like that, but in terms of the production costs only.
That’s why man-made is cheaper; they’re competing against a rigidly corrupt and price fixed market.
Mind you, I also couldn’t tell you what the cost of mining the diamonds would be if slave labor wasn’t involved either. Could be that with fair wages, safety measures, etc, manmade would totally undercut natural again.
There, that’s the ten cent version instead of the penny cent version. Not gonna waste anyone’s time on the buck fifty version because I doubt anyone else cares, and I don’t care enough :)
As a rule of thumb, man-made diamonds on average sell for about 10% the cost of natural diamonds. A year ago, they cost about 20%-30% of the price, according to Diamond Hedge.
A natural 2-carat, round-cut diamond with a high-quality color and clarity rating costs about $13,000-14,000, whereas the equivalent lab-grown diamond sells for about $1,000, according to Sompura.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-natural-lab-diamond/
Edit: That article is a year old. It could be down to 5% now at the rate it dropped already.
For April Fools, Cards Against Humanity was literally selling diamond studded potatoes for $69.99 (USD) - and claimed a $1000 value, which I’m sure they would be at retail prices.
The FAQ said they had thousands of them, but I didn’t get there in time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
A Veblen good is a type of luxury good, named after American economist Thorstein Veblen, for which the demand increases as the price increases, in apparent contradiction of the law of demand, resulting in an upward-sloping demand curve. The higher prices of Veblen goods may make them desirable as a status symbol in the practices of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure. A product may be a Veblen good because it is a positional good, something few others can own.
That said, part of the problem with lab-grown diamonds is that they’re not competing against a rare commodity. They’re competing against a powerful vertically integrated cartel. There isn’t any real diamond shortage, just a supply-side monopoly. There isn’t a natural high demand for diamonds, just a market saturated with aggressive advertising. There isn’t a wholesale diamond exchange judging the rocks objectively on their quality, just a series of elaborate marketing gimmicks and scammy sales goons trying to upsell you.
Diamonds have always been a racket. The one blessing of manufactured diamonds is that they’re no longer a racket putting market pressure on industrial grade diamond equipment. But the jewelry exists to separate gullible superficial status-fixated people from their money. Ethics was never part of the equation.
Cool-ass economics fun fact, hell yeah
or not so fun
The dismal science
Best comment that I also hated reading all month.
So the answer is just to buy a lab-grown diamond, and then tell everyone it’s real, because once the poors have it, it won’t be cool anymore
The issue is he cartel. Telling people “I overpaid for a blood diamond” and flashing them your big rock does nothing to undermine the cartel in the long run.
@Infynis@midwest.social has a great point. If you, the pleb, wears an artificial diamond and ruin the mood for the people who overpay for the blood diamonds, does devalue the status symbol.
It is the same reason why clothing brands fight so eagerly against cheap knockoffs, even if the knockoffs can be identified easily.
At this point you’re not paying money for a diamond, you’re paying money for a certificate.
If you want to know how much a diamond is really worth, go to any jewelry store and ask them to appraise the resell value of your natural diamond ring with certificate and all, no matter how much you paid for it, they’re probably going to tell you only the precious metal setting is worth any money, and the rock itself is utterly worthless the second you received it.
Which makes diamond a terrible symbol for love.
Considering more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, maybe a worthless symbol is fitting.
Initially inflated and overwhelming, then completely ordinary with little value beyond how you feel about it.
“See, our love is just like a diamond: Turns to
coal under high pressure and tosmoke when heated.”
Edited for factsDiamonds turn to coal under pressure? I thought it was the other way around. i.e. formed from coal under high pressure.
The fact diamonds can burn is pretty crazy, but it makes sense since they’re mostly (entirely?) carbon.
Edit: Sorry for ruining your otherwise perfect analogy :)
I like diamonds, my wife calls me a magpie. I buy her jewelry so I get to look at it while she wears it. That being said, I only buy jewelry with artificial diamonds for my better half. She jokingly reacts affronted when I tell her, with an incredulous face she will go “What? No children died for this? Some husband you are!”
I want to buy a synthetic gemstone that is impossible to be formed naturally. I’m sure there’s at least a few.
Moissanite (Synthetic Silicon Carbide):
While natural silicon carbide (moissanite) does exist, it is extremely rare and is not used in jewelry. The moissanite used in jewelry is entirely synthetic. Its properties, such as brilliance and hardness, make it a common alternative to diamonds. YAG (Yttrium Aluminum Garnet):
Originally developed for industrial and laser applications, YAG is sometimes used as a gemstone. Although it is named a “garnet,” it is not related to the natural garnet family of minerals. Strontium Titanate:
Developed in the mid-20th century as a diamond simulant. It has a much higher dispersion than diamond, giving it a fiery brilliance, but it is too soft for practical jewelry use. Synthetic Rutile:
While natural rutile exists, the synthetic version created in the lab has been used as a gemstone due to its high dispersion and brilliance. The synthetic version is engineered for specific optical qualities. Titanium Sapphire (Ti:Sapphire):
A synthetic material often used in lasers. While not commonly used in jewelry, it is a synthetic gemstone that does not naturally occur in this form. These synthetic gemstones are often engineered for specific aesthetic, optical, or industrial purposes and are distinct from natural gemstones, either because they do not naturally occur in gem-quality form or because they are entirely man-made.
Synthetic Alexandrite (Czochralski or Flame Fusion):
Although natural alexandrite exists, synthetic versions often have unique compositions or colors that don’t occur naturally, created purely for novelty. Boron Nitride Crystals:
Synthetic boron nitride can be engineered into gem-like forms. It’s extremely rare in nature and appears in fascinating, unusual forms in the lab. Synthetic Opal (Novel Patterns):
Lab-grown opals can exhibit color patterns or transparency levels not seen in natural opals, such as extreme brightness or perfectly uniform “play-of-color.” Synthetic Quartz Variants:
Quartz can be synthesized with inclusions or colorations (e.g., deep purple or unique patterns) that are unattainable in natural environments. Colored Synthetic Diamonds:
Lab-created diamonds can be grown with colors that are extremely rare or impossible in nature, such as perfectly vibrant reds, blues, or even neon shades due to precise chemical doping. Bismuth Crystals:
While not technically a gemstone, synthetic bismuth crystals are grown in labs and have rainbow-colored, step-like structures not naturally found in geological settings. Synthetic Spinel:
While spinel exists naturally, synthetic spinel can be created in colors or with clarity not found in nature, such as vibrant neon hues. Synthetic Perovskites:
Perovskites are naturally occurring but rare in gem-quality form. Synthetic versions, often used in solar panels, can be cut into unusual, sparkling gems. Synthetic Corundum with Patterns:
Sapphire and ruby (corundum) can be synthesized with added colors or patterns, such as stars, gradients, or even mixed hues that are impossible naturally. Gallium Nitride Crystals:
Used in electronics but can be fashioned into gemstones with unusual optical properties, entirely absent from nature. Synthetic Fluorite Variants:
While fluorite exists in nature, synthetic fluorite can exhibit colors and patterns engineered for jewelry or purely aesthetic purposes. Zirconium Carbide or Nitride:
These materials are synthetic and metallic, with a high refractive index and an unusual, futuristic appearance when polished. Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) Crystals:
MOFs are a class of synthetic porous crystals with complex geometric structures and vibrant colors, making them unique and striking. Hyper-Modified Glass or Vitreous Materials:
Glass-like gemstones doped with rare elements (such as europium or neodymium) can fluoresce or shift colors in ways impossible in natural stones. Synthetic Garnets (Uncommon Types):
Garnets like gadolinium gallium garnet (GGG) or yttrium iron garnet (YIG) are synthesized for industrial purposes but can be cut into gemstones. These stones are not just rare but impossible to find naturally, offering a unique and unconventional aesthetic perfect for someone looking to stand out.
Synthetic Alexandrite (Czochralski or Flame Fusion):
Although natural alexandrite exists, synthetic versions often have unique compositions or colors that don’t occur naturally, created purely for novelty. Boron Nitride Crystals:
Synthetic boron nitride can be engineered into gem-like forms. It’s extremely rare in nature and appears in fascinating, unusual forms in the lab. Synthetic Opal (Novel Patterns):
Lab-grown opals can exhibit color patterns or transparency levels not seen in natural opals, such as extreme brightness or perfectly uniform “play-of-color.” Synthetic Quartz Variants:
Quartz can be synthesized with inclusions or colorations (e.g., deep purple or unique patterns) that are unattainable in natural environments. Colored Synthetic Diamonds:
Lab-created diamonds can be grown with colors that are extremely rare or impossible in nature, such as perfectly vibrant reds, blues, or even neon shades due to precise chemical doping. Bismuth Crystals:
While not technically a gemstone, synthetic bismuth crystals are grown in labs and have rainbow-colored, step-like structures not naturally found in geological settings. Synthetic Spinel:
While spinel exists naturally, synthetic spinel can be created in colors or with clarity not found in nature, such as vibrant neon hues. Synthetic Perovskites:
Perovskites are naturally occurring but rare in gem-quality form. Synthetic versions, often used in solar panels, can be cut into unusual, sparkling gems. Synthetic Corundum with Patterns:
Sapphire and ruby (corundum) can be synthesized with added colors or patterns, such as stars, gradients, or even mixed hues that are impossible naturally. Gallium Nitride Crystals:
Used in electronics but can be fashioned into gemstones with unusual optical properties, entirely absent from nature. Synthetic Fluorite Variants:
While fluorite exists in nature, synthetic fluorite can exhibit colors and patterns engineered for jewelry or purely aesthetic purposes. Zirconium Carbide or Nitride:
These materials are synthetic and metallic, with a high refractive index and an unusual, futuristic appearance when polished. Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) Crystals:
MOFs are a class of synthetic porous crystals with complex geometric structures and vibrant colors, making them unique and striking. Hyper-Modified Glass or Vitreous Materials:
Glass-like gemstones doped with rare elements (such as europium or neodymium) can fluoresce or shift colors in ways impossible in natural stones. Synthetic Garnets (Uncommon Types):
Garnets like gadolinium gallium garnet (GGG) or yttrium iron garnet (YIG) are synthesized for industrial purposes but can be cut into gemstones. These stones are not just rare but impossible to find naturally, offering a unique and unconventional aesthetic perfect for someone looking to stand out.
Before I proposed, my (now)wife and I discussed this and we did some research, then went with Moissanite.
She has a ring with a huge very shiny stone that doesn’t break when it hits something, and we both also still have some money left.
It’s awesome that all these other options exist as well!
(Similarly, we got married at home with a friend as an officiant* and only close family present. It was great.
*He had earlier gotten himself ordained by mail so he could officiate the wedding of his own daughter.)
Moissanite is so pretty. I’m not much of a jewelry guy. And I’m not trans. But I’ve always wanted to wear lots of pretty sparkly things. I’m having a blast looking through all these fun possibilities. When I was in Atlanta a pedestrian walked by me wearing all white, and dripping in silver chains, he looked like a time traveler, I want to do that but with purple or green. Do you remember where you got your engagement ring stone?
Have you ever considered glitter as a starting point?
to marry someone? you monster
This is fascinating and badass. Now I want a crazy neon pink gemstone.
Me too, just researching gave me so many ideas, even if I never plan to buy one. They’re so pretty. Check out the quartz
Some of these vendor sites are crazy expensive but with a little more digging I bet I could find high quality, big beefy stones for under a hundo
A lot of comments here are suspicious of you, so I’m going to try my hand at guessing whether this was AI.
Since GPTs are hilariously bad at detecting themselves, I’ll venture on the human spirit!
First, we establish truth 1: this is copy-pasted.
Although Moissanite isn’t mentioned twice, everything after “Synthetic Alexandrite” inclusively is mentioned twice. That means this was procedurally copy-pasted. Someone writing on their own would either CTRL+A then CTRL+C and make no mistakes, or not repeat themself at all.
Of course, we can also look at the half-formalized format that indicates something was copied from raw text and pasted into markdown, rather than formatted with markdown first.
Colon:
words words Colon:
words words Colon:copy-paster spotted
Second, we cast doubt that a human wrote the source.
- AI-isms vs. non AI-isms
-
Non-reused acronym definitions.
Garnets like… yttrium iron garnet (YIG)
This is probably taken straight from the Wikipedia’s site description for YIG. Usually humans don’t define an acronym only to never use it, unless they’re making a mistake, especially not for just making repeated structure. So either Wikipedia was in the training corpus or this was Googled.
-
5/23 sentences start with “While” (weak ai indicator)
-
no three-em dashes or obvious tricolons are overused (non ai-indicator)
-
no filler bullshit introduction or conclusion (non ai-indicator)
-
obvious repeated structure that you can feel (strong ai indicator)
-
Suspiciously uncreative descriptions (ai indicator)
“These stones are not just rare but impossible to find naturally, offering a unique and unconventional aesthetic perfect for someone looking to stand out.” (emphasis added)
-
Repetition of “unusual” and “rare” rather than more flavorful or useful adjectives (AI indicator)
- We’re talking synthetic stuff. Would a human write about rarity?
-
Superficial, neutral-positive voice despite length and possible source. If this was pasted from a technical blog, I’d expect it to have more “I” and personal experiences, or more deep anecdotal flavor (AI indicator)
- e.g. use of “fascinating” but doesn’t go deeper into any positivities
-
Third… let’s take a guess
So it was copy-pasted from somewhere, but I can’t imagine it being from a blog or website, and it isn’t directly from Wikipedia. It has some nonhuman mistakes, but is otherwise grammatical, neutral-positive, and repetitively structured. And it lacks that deeper flavor. So… it was an AI, but likely not openAI.
At least there aren’t any very “committal” facts, so the length but lack of depth suggests that everything’s maaaaaaybe true…
I wasted my time typing this
I enjoyed your analysis, and appreciate the time you spent on it!
lol
I thoroughly enjoyed your in-depth analysis and learned a few things. I think we need to understand how to spot if something was written by AI or not, and this is very helpful for that.
Means a lot! Thank you! (˶ˆᗜˆ˵) ✧
- AI-isms vs. non AI-isms
Quartz can be synthesized
Hmm…
Why does it say “likeley generated by AI”? If it’s 43%, that means it’s more likely to be written by a Human.
?
That fucking site is going to cause so much unnecessary strife and difficultly. LLMs are trained on real speech; that site is going to get is wrong constantly. We all want there to be some magic bullet or to pretend that AI is so easily clockable, but the simple truth is that it simply isn’t and all shit like this does is end up making people who actually know how to use “advanced grammar” (said sarcastically) like semicolons and em dashes have to deal with a shit ton of harassment from idiotic chuds who can’t comprehend that a real person can be more eloquent than “me like good thing!”
yeah, well… Some website said you talk like a chat bot so hahah owned! /s
The hypocrisy of using AI to ferret out AI and then to act like that gives one any right to judge…
right? who cares who wrote it. it’s a hobby post, not a dissertation
Those sites are really inaccurate afaik, but it does feel generated.
Probably because it was boring and repetitive by the 3/50th paragraph.
Ok, but is any of it wrong? That’s much more important to me, but I can’t speak for anyone else.
I want a stone so un-natural that the mineral is named cthulite.
Sorry, but the demon core is not for sale.
In it, you see a tiny civilization. You are the cosmic horror.
These exist
It’s a rabbit hole. Some of these things don’t even have names. You can buy them and wear that shit in a ring. Some of them are wildly expensive. But imagine somebody asking you what that stone is and being able to say, I don’t know lol
deleted by creator
Shit like that is why I think neuro-atypical people might actually be the correct psychological state and everyone else is just a “normal” animal.
An AuDHD perspective: Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests. They’re less in-touch with their senses, sometimes needing mind-altering substances in order to appreciate basic sensory stimuli. Not only that, but they are overly-invested in “following the group” and “blending in,” even if it ends up harming them.
So yeah, you might be onto something.
What self-important bullshit 🤣
Average neurotypical reaction. Can’t expect them to understand 🤷
Imagine thinking normal people don’t have hobbies and then acting superior about it on the Internet…
Imagine
No no you guys have hobbies! You’re valuable members of society and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
That’ll be the autism.
Says the guy who just had his feeling of superiority threatened.
I like to call it Attention Surplus Disorder. It’s crazy to me how most people can just focus on something for 50 hours a week that they’re not interested in at all, and this doesn’t set off warning bells in their head.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of antiwork neurotypicals, but it seems weird how many people actively support it.
Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests.
When the interest at issue is human relationships and social norms, I think it flips the other way around.
Better to characterize things by what type of interests tend to appeal to which.
Neurotypical // Neurodivergent
I often forget the term and end up using atypical.
I don’t listen to hip-hop.
Use to work opposite a De Beers building that had a helipad on the roof. Choppers were always flying in and out.
Thought it was the CEO coming and going by heli, but turns out they were for diamond shipments. Safer to transport them by air than on the road.
The fact that the human race sees scarcity as a good thing…
Is everything I need to justify misanthropy in its most literal form (Hatred of humanity)
It’s not so much people being attracted to scarcity, but decades of diamond industry propaganda having an effect on our culture. Even now there’s an active effort being put by the diamond industry into keeping natural diamonds the “forever gem” while artificial gems made in a lab are being portrayed as “everyday gems”, as in less prestigious.
Scarcity of what? Food, water, sanitary infrastructure, shelter, healthcare? Yeah that is bad.
Scarcity of pretty rocks, some people want to wear as accessoires? Fine whatever. Also i wouldn’t mind the mining of scarce and pretty rocks, if it wouldn’t go with the destruction of the environment and human rights abuses.
Scarcity of anything is a bad idea. Shouldn’t we WANT to live in a land of plenty?
Well, if we had less oil, gas and coal it could make things a lot better with climate change.
Abundance can also lead to wastefullness. But generally speaking it just doesn’t matter if pretty rocks are scarce or not, if they don’t have any value in fulfilling human needs.
“Fine whatever” until someone thinks that the pretty rock that we used to base the entire financial system around is what we still should base it around again, despite the fact that the whole economy could crash if someone digs a hole in the right place or develops some new refining technology.
Incorrect. Scarcity refers to quantity, not quality.
I gave my wife a natural diamond engagement ring, but it belonged to my great-grandmother, so I felt that it was ethical enough. You can’t really do much about suffering 120 years ago (or whatever it was) and probably everyone involved in making that ring was treated like shit in one way or another because it was 1904 and everyone who wasn’t white, male and rich suffered.
My brain; “120 years? So the mid 1800s right?..”
The most suffering-free and eco-friendly ring is the one already made, so, you did the best thing!
I think so too, thank you.
For a few years I’ve saved this pic from previous similar posts in various places, no need even for freaking diamonds
Moisannaite gives the most rainbows, and I think they are gorgeous.
But I do love the sparkle of diamonds, and sometimes prefer it. Fortunately synthetic ones are easy to come by.
Is that a difference in the material, or is the Moissanite cut differently?
If Moissanaite just does that, then damn, that’s pretty.
Moissanite is a completely different substance than diamond, it’s a silicon carbide crystal, and it’s also made synthetically so no worries about exploitation mining, it’s also cheaper
I’m asking about the light. The lightshow produced by a crystal is down to both the optical properties of the material, but also the geometry of how it was cut.
The image is really cool, but it only demonstrates a difference if the moissanite was cut into the exact same shape as the diamonds.
A prism doesn’t split light because of the material its made of, but because of its shape.
Moissanite has a marginally higher index of refraction than diamond so the “ideal” cutting geometry would be different. This looks like a misleading demonstration intended to market something. They appear nearly identical in normal conditions
That’s what I was immediately thinking.
Getting pretty colors out of a clear crystal is more about how it was cut, than what it’s made of.
Unless it’s something like opal that produces lightshows through completely different optical effects.
Isn’t it both shape and material? The refractive index of the material is important in determining how much the light bends at the interface.
Yes, but a clear crystal is a clear crystal.
If you want to split light you can do what regardless of refractive index (as long as it isn’t zero), you’d just need to cut different angles and/or project the light onto a surface that’s closer/farther to get the same effect using a different material.
Yes, but a clear crystal is a clear crystal.
No, different materials have different refractive indices, even if they’re both “clear crystals.” Maybe the examples given are very close in refractive index, but they still differ, therefore split light differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices
I’m not saying it’s the entire difference, but it certainly comes into play. It could be that the more “explosive” light example is cut identically, but held slightly askew versus the others.
Point is, it’s not just the cut that impacts the result.
…
That’s literally my point.
I’m saying you can’t tell the difference between two materials unless they are cut the same.
If they are cut differently to achieve the results you are seeing, you can’t tell whether the difference is because of the cut, or because of the material.
Ah, i misunderstood, yeah, there’s got to be some rigging in that demo pic now that you mention it, however if Moissanite is essentially a drop-in replacement for diamonds in jewelry that is cheaper and looks even slightly nicer, which seems to be the case, then all should be well, doubly so if it kills the profits of De Beers. I’d ask to see the contrast IN PERSON if i was shopping for rings today though, nothing beats that.
no worries about exploitation
Until De Beers starts synthesizing it.
Yeah what conditions are these scientists working under?
This. If you really want an economical alternative, moissanite is a great option. Obviously not 1 for 1, but pretty damn close for jewelry.
They arguably refract better and don’t have a history of slavery and death.
I was, just moments ago, watching a video on the jerryrigeverything youtube channel about how industrial diamonds are made.
Same with vehicles
