Yes

The"single cell pet" gets me even more… Like isn’t that a tad specific? Dogs? No prob! Rabbits? Be my guest. Amoeba? Fuck off, weirdo!

Not Op here, from what I’ve read is that the answer to that question is unknown but he showed a significant tolerance for some. Does that make it himself fine? In my book: yes.

For me personally it was enoughto leave the project behind as it’s so closely tied to the person.

That’s a call everyone needs to do for themselves though if course

Im not familiar with British law, anyone care to explain why this is capped at 90%? Kinda unintuitive to me.

Oh. That would explain the hashtags. I’ll edit my comment to point out yours!

Thanks!

Hypothesis: the message seems to imply that the cliche nature lover needs to trample and destroy said nature to be close to it.

This seems the most likely explanation to me.

And I find it neither funny nor insightful.

Edit: I can’t manage to copy paste usernames on mobile but please check out the refinement by the comment to this post. Highly valuable edition. Tldr of it: not “nature lovers” in general but social media invasive nature lovers.

Lemmy.world is blocked by beehaw as well…

For me it’s very simple: NSFW can’t have a general acceptable definition because it depends on culture, background and personal beliefs. There is no way for a collection of communities to have a common definition and even if they would have: enforcement and interpretation is still done by volunteers.

Therefore All is never safe for work unless I know that my tolerance is lower than all communities within lemmy AND I’m fine with an accidental penis or breast due to human error.

I don’t hate that much but I don’t watch him because of the shady selling business hr often does and apparent sponsored content which is not always disclosed (been a while but his channel misrepresented graphics cards benchmarks for example).

It’s like the British yellow press for me: his face alone is enough to discredit the quality of the source. Could it be good? Sure! Will I ever find out? Not anymore.

Wow thanks a lot for that!

At least in Germany it’s the same. It gets ignored in the discussions concerning nuclear exit but it’s actually the main reason why I’m not aggressively against it: we have save areas for nuclear storage but those fight bitterly to not have it. The areas which are currently used are… Not good. Paying someone else (such as Finland) is out of budget for both state and energy companies. The latter anyway want to do the running but not the maintenance and the building, state should pay for that.

It’s really white sad for me. The (true) statement that the dangerous waste needs to be stored carefully got corrupted to “it can’t be stored”.

Because a Ponzi scheme revolves around paying past people with fresh money without using it as promised at all.

Insurances (when fraudulent) collect money but don’t pay out anyone unless forced by lawsuits. Ponzi schemes are s vers specific financial tactic.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

The account isn’t the issue in itself it’s the data transfer that comes with accepting the agreement that comes with that account.

“Free” is straight wrong.

Haha brainfart. Thought about lan domains…

Who should do this vetting though? The internet was built up with the idea of technical neutrality - everything else came on top. TLDs came later and were used to either describe the origin of a page or its intended(!) use. That leads to the case that not only can a propaganda outlet mark itself as “info” - it’s actually historically correct to do so as it’s about what the host wants to communicate.

ICANN, the organisation behind the TLDs, actually always struggles with this btw. A more recent example was the decision which domain should be reserved for local name services. It took y long time (I think years overall) to get to: .internal (edited, brainfart)

Would you mind telling the source of this? Looks intuitively right but… So do so many things :/

At home, in private lodgings and dedicated smoking areas.

This is one thing once more which would be a non issue if it weren’t for the people who throw their stubs everywhere and blow smoke in the faces of others.

Hm I was clearly wrong, I apologize! The excuse is that I was really tired and already quite “clickbait state of mind” ish.

Thank you for taking the time to write this! ♥

Yes. And the “survivors” don’t have a say in that if the person itself said otherwise before dying.

Training future doctors is a good cause and will most likely save lives in a similar fashion to donating a heart after all.

Edit: I removed a wrong part here claiming that the article is clickbait. I was off by a mile, see the reply to this post as to why.

Nah, you’re doing the right thing: getting input when not sure. That’s the way of learning!

Only one request: add the thoughts from this answer to the OP the next time please! Would make reading it a bit easier and better framed, at least for me.

(I.e. “I’m an authority in this field, look at this exciting news!” VS “my bullshit sensors tingle but I don’t know enough. What are your thoughts?”