Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S
Posts
34
Comments
584
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • It is not a crime if someone was breaking into your home, you were fearing for your life and defended yourself. By law actual law enforcers would have a warrant.

    Also if the question of whether it is a suspected state crime or a federal crime depends on who the employer of that person is, the US would be outside the scope of a state of law and resistance all the more mandated.

  • People need to start shooting at ICE agents that break into homes. If Judges have their wits about them they'll throw out any cases against people who defended themselves against the ICE gang breaking in to abduct them or their family.

  • "Whenever you want to scam people as a company, just invent some fancy words that sound like innovation" odometer

  • No, MS just wants to expand their monopoly, but "MS buying most common browser, after antitrust laws already forbid internet explorer" doesnt ring so well.

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#By_continent

    National laws vary widely according to the politics of each jurisdiction. As of 2012, only two countries do not mandate paid time off for new parents: Papua New Guinea and the United States.

    Somalia 14 [weeks] 50% [pay] Employer liability [source of pay]

  • ODing on Ketamine is quite difficult. LD50 for mice i.V. is 77mg/kg. So for an 80kg mouse that would be more than 6 grams of Ketamine given i.V. typically the bioavailability by nasal or oral consumption is lower and Musk most likely has a high tolerance. So we are talking probably 50grams or more of Ketamine for a lethal dosage for Musk.

    I am not sure if Musk could actually snort enough Ketamine for a lethal dosage without it just falling back out of his nostrils or if he could swallow one without his stomach turning before it is adsorbed.

    Obviously all of these numbers are speculative and taking drugs is harmful, no matter the amount. Also people often die not by ODing on Ketamine, but by killing themselves in accidents as they loose control over their muscles.

  • IIRC. the US is one in two countries in the entire world that does not offer paid maternity leave.

  • Drought resistance refers to whether the plant can survive droughts. it does not necessarily refer to the plants yielding well under drought. However if the plant is still yielding, it could even become more profitable as other plants stop yielding. The deep roots of the plant help it under drought, as the Soil drys top to bottom. Plants that have deeper roots maintain access to water, while the top is already dried out.

    To try a poor metaphor: Someone who is 2m tall but short-sighted will still see better in a crowd than someone who is 1.60m but has the best eyes in the world.

    https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/managing_alfalfa_during_drought

  • So it is not given to a centralized authority, that is guided by for profit motives and also does the moderation of its plattform.

    Where this can lead was shown with twiiter. The moment the central organization is captured, the central authority will abuse the authentification for its own goals. Then instead of just having to check for the authentification to be reliable you need to question everything that is on that plattform as a whole, which is infinetly more consuming, but also simply impossible.

  • If the same authority is doing verification that is also doing moderation and both ultimately in a for profit setting, that has conflict of interest.

    We dont know how reliable bluesky moderation will stay. We dont know how they will respond to political pressure. We dont know how they will monetize past the growth phase and then could also argue a "service fee" for verification.

    In a perfect world none of these would happen, but then everybody could still be on twitter and be fine there.

  • Idk. Celebrities and Politicians usually have other vetted channels such as their own website or a website of their ogranization representing them. It should be basic journalistic work to see if their social media links link to the account in question or not.

  • Removed

    Miss me yet?

    Jump
  • The US has been a threat to world peace no matter who was president for the past 30 years (at least)

  • So do you believe genes existed before genetic testing? What would you have said to someone suggesting genes exist before there were tests for them?

    It is a quite simple question of whether you accept the possibility of things existing, before there is a scientific consensus on their existence. The scientific approach then is simply to say "i dont know" rather than "i dont know therefore it does not exist". Because of this fallacy i also consider atheists to be people of faith rather than science. They should just not conflate the two and claim their faith to be science.

  • What is your evidence of genetics? Unless you are a biochemist and have run experiments yourself, it will boil down to "somebody told me/I have read it in a book". So your evidence boils down to a chain of narration. Which narrators you trust or distrust is a subjective matter.

    Genetics are a great example though. Modern genetics are often perceived to start with the work of Mendel in the 19th century. Imagine instead of being taught about genetics in school and maybe later in university, you would have lived in the 17th century. Would you have rejected the concept of genes as "fairy tale" because there was no evidence you deemed credible available?

    What about atomic models? Would you have considered them to be "fairy tales" prior to the developments of the late 19th and early 20th century? What about how atom models changed? Would you mock Nils Bohr because his atomic model became partly obsolete with the work of Heisenberg? Did you do any of the experiments which lead to the developments of atomic models yourself?

    So in practice the only scientific approach is to say: "I have neither evidence that convinces me for or against it, therefore i don't know". Saying something is false or does not exist because you don't see evidence for it, is a matter of faith, rather than a matter of science.

    EDIT: As for the experiments, i had both the typical experiments for genetics in biochemistry and for atoms in physics lectures for my engineering degree. As for narrations there exist plenty of evidence for the life and work of the prophet Mohamed (sas.). Whether you accept it as evidence of prophethood is a subjective matter, just like it is a subjective matter if you believe your biology or your physics textbook, unless you have verified this information by your own experiments.

  • And genetics were used to justify genocide and eugenics. By your logic are genetics absolutely evil?The constitution of the US is interpreted by some in a way to justify the most horrific crimes against mankind. Is the constitution absolutely evil? Many philosophers works were used by Fascists to justify their empires. Are those philosophers absolutely evil?

    As for the designation as "fairy tale". I would expect people that see themselves as scientists or following scientific principles to have their curiosity sparked if a 1400 years old book made statements that link to todays scientific discoveries, rather than immediately making a point of rejecting it in an aggressive way.

  • Which system? The US political system? That one is damaged beyond repair and needs to be reworked completely. The global economic system? That one is also damaged beyond repair, but the rework will create a lot of instability and most likely war.

  • That a sexual relationship is permissable as opposed to being prohibited, like adultery or fornication, does not equate to rape. Neither is adultery rape if both parties consent, yet it is prohibited under islamic and other abrahamic religions.

    Those are necessary requirements not sufficient requirements. You know, like how a driving licencse is a necesaary requirement for driving, but it does not allow you to drive if your car has no lights and you are under the influence, as these are also necessary requirements.

  • In order for that to make sense for a company, there must be one dominant distribution or their software must be the truly one and only for that purpose. Otherwise they just loose market shares to other companies willing to serve all distributions.

    It is possible in principle and of course the MBA bros will try to pull stunts like this. It will be much more difficult to execute successfully though and it will be much easier to challenge from an anti-trust aspect.

    Everyone running a linux distro won't be a fairytale land, but it is still a huge step into the right direction.