Several senators commented on the incident, questioning Alderan’s intentions, since they still don’t seem to want to return to the negotiating table.

lol yeah. They didn’t edit out all the flirting though or all the embarassed or indignant reactions by the characters around them, which presents those “cousins” in a really interesting light ;)

The US version of Sailor Moon was also censored and edited in different other ways. IIRC:

• All Tokyo references were changed to New York. So they’ve changed where the whole thing took place.
• They changed all Japanese writings (Hiragana, Katakana, Kanji)
• Multiple characters had their gender or sex changed as to avoid homosexual relations.
• The music was completely changed for some reason
• They took out many scenes or even whole episodes if they thought, they might vaguely get into conflict with the FCC.
• They scrapped a whole season, because the Sailor Starlights (I think that was their name?) changed gender in their magical transformation.

The most infamous would be South Park episodes S14E05 and S14E06 named “200” and “201”. The central theme of the episodes: Censorship. Something South Park had been subjected to ever since its inception. And this time, they centered around the limits of what is allowed around depictions of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. For context: These episodes aired after controversies around such depictions in media around the world had people killed.

So in an attempt to protect themselves, the network engaged in censorship of the episodes and it is sometimes unclear, what was intentionally in there as a plot point from the creators and what was added by the network. Although some egregious examples are clear, such as the complete bleeping of Kyle’s “I’ve learned something today” monologue at the end. While Stone and Parker inserted clear plot points like characters like Moses of all people asking, whether something was OK to show or say. I’m still uncertain whether the huge censorship bar over the Prophet is a plot point, or censorship or both.

The kicker: Prophet Muhammad had been shown in earlier episodes already, without sparking controversy and in “200” and “201” they even reference those episodes. As expected, they received death threats after the airing of the episodes and later pulled all five episodes with Muhammad depictions from their streaming sites (Super-Best Friends, Cartoon Wars 1+2, 200, 201).

Yeah I made a similar discovery after installing a Shelly Switch with Power Metering. The monitors and their brightness make a huge difference as well when in or near idle (for photography, so not a surprise). I’ve also implemented an “anti-standby” function, so the switch opens whenever the current falls under a specific threshold.

For the WoL, since I have a switch, I configured my BIOS so it would turn on after power loss. Now I can start to boot up from afar :)

You seem absolutely sure that this will materialize and that its implication means that you have no scope of action. Again, with enough institutionalists in important positions, even if he tries, it would be difficult for him to actually get rid of federal, let alone local and state elections. What is much more likely is that he will make it easier to skew or how he might call it “rig” elections. You know, like voter suppression and gerrymandering on steroids. So what I’ve written still holds: On a local and state level (or even federal level), pressure your elected officials and organize around the protection of voting rights. Be an active part of the legislative process. Democracy isn’t making a cross every four years. And she’s calling on all of us.

Sidenote: For everything that man says, you can find a clip of him saying the absolute opposite. So watch what he and his lackeys do, not what he says.

Decrying the persecution of crimes against humanity as antisemitic is quite something. It begs the question then, what these people see inherently Semitic about perpetrating these crimes.

The blatant misuse of this term is actually very harmful to Jews around the world, since calls of those actually suffering from anti-Jewish sentiment are not taken seriously anymore.

The OP did a quality reply already where he cites the article you’ve linked to debunk your own claims. But you could also have done with reading the OP’s article until the second paragraph.

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

At this point unquestionably spouting the official lies of the U.S. or Israeli governments is spouting genocidal propaganda and can only be seen as either hopelessly ignorant or bad faith.

The second paragraph in the article:

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

The second paragraph reads:

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

Outside perspective: It doesn’t have to be. It is the moment democracy, its values and its people are tested. The path towards open dictatorship and/or fascism is not set in stone. What is clear is that some setbacks, even catastrophic setbacks, are unavoidable. But as a whole the free-fall can be avoided and you can bounce back from setbacks, even if it takes time. This is actually somewhat universal, since it’s not only the U.S. which is sliding more and more towards fascistic or anti-democratic tendencies. It’s just that, like with so many other things, everything does seem to be bigger in the U.S. (and Texas).

Although I’m sure a lot are feeling economic pain and/or are generally under stress and uncertainty (IIRC 50% of households struggle to make an unplanned $1000 expense), and I don’t expect it to get better under the new administration, the U.S. is still a federated system. If you look at what affects your daily lives directly, a lot more is done on a local and state level, than on the federal level.

From where I’m standing, organizing with like-minded people in your community around issues is the most promising way to go. Unfortunately the issues are back to basics issues like human rights and democratic principles, but that’s where we are. This entails more than just protesting, but actively pressuring elected officials around legislation proposals. Suggest ballot measures (find out how such a measure gets to the ballot in the first place, because it’s very different depending on where you are). And of course having people run for office and for the others to support them to get in, and get the anti-democratic forces out, once it is time. Don’t succumb to the nationalization of local elections. People can be reached way better and more directly on the local level, when they can see it directly affecting their lives and talking to the people responsible directly than for anything happening in Washington D.C. Counter the anti-democracy spewing media outlets with true alternatives (maybe there’s an entrepreneurial-minded person wanting to found a cooperative media outlet).

It sounds like a lot to do. But you are more, than you think. Even the disillusioned might be good allies. Take yes for an answer. And more people than you might expect have been part of ‘the struggle’ for a long time. Welcome them. And yes: Coordinate with and support other local actions.

Another view on what will happen with the federal institutions: Although Trump will put more loyalists than ever in powerful stations, there will remain many (even among the loyalists) who profit from the system’s status quo. This includes the Supreme Court justices and ironically corporate goons. So in furthering their own advantage, they might resist things leading to an overall degradation. Of course they will go along with and actively lobby for anything that gives them more power at the expense of the general populace, but that is already the case. Again, if you make unlikely allies on single issues: Take yes for an answer.

Bottom line: Democracy and basic rights are ideas, made by humans. And they can only survive, as long as we believe in and fight for them. Always keep the belief, always keep on fighting. If you hit your head and fall down: Get back up. As the saying goes: This is a marathon, not a sprint. All the best!

No surprise there. Not too long ago they have given up their ‘neutral’ stance (wasn’t really when Wagner was involved with the RSF) and gained support from the SAF for the construction of a Russian naval base, while the Wagner group still fights with the RSF.

Oof, yeah I was about 23 and wanted to help my now wife to get some of the correct size, which was an almost impossible ordeal. Wanna hear the story? Fine:

Taking the two measures was the easy part (and doing it again during her period, because of course the size changes during the cycle, anything else would be too easy). Then I read that the cup size is the absolute difference between bust and band measurement no matter the band measurement. Furthermore since the material is elastic, for a good support, the band should be a tad below the measurement*.

So far so good, went to the store and there are only A-D cups everywhere, E if you’re lucky. So basically no matter what exact measure they take between the cups, you’re ok if you’re thin and have small or somewhat big breasts, or you’re a bit fuller and have tiny breasts. Everyone else is automatically screwed. If you’re lucky enough to fall into those categories you then have to try on so many to sift through different positioning and forms of breasts until you find one that is comfortable. We had to order some all the way from the UK because it wasn’t possible to get anything coming near the correct size here.

*women who wore normal cloth bras before and continued wearing the same size have felt that the elastic hasn’t made things better necessarily. Can’t find the source for that one right now though.

And when people jump to “yeah but Democrats are to blame” I know we’re usually already in Bad Faithville. Both Sides and all that.

Just no. This is not about both sides in any shape way or form. This is about agency. Fact is: There were ways to do this and the last three Democratic presidents (including the sitting president) have campaigned and outlined plans to codify it into law and didn’t. Yes it may have taken people by surprise that the country and the world is regressing as early and fast as it is, but that doesn’t take away agency, especially when they didn’t even try to spring to action after mere lip service to garner votes.

The thing is: The conservative, religious right, openly formulated and has been following their plan of judicial activism for decades. The lower courts haven’t become this biased towards Republican policy over night. It was due to bad luck, bad faith acting of McConnel and the other Republican senators and stubberness of some involved people on the other side of the aisle that Trump was able to nominate this many people to the USSC. It would have happened at some point.

They didn’t fail. They didn’t even try. Not even with a super-majority.

I am sick of such important issues like health of people, let alone half the population, being used as mere strategic play. So please push them to do the right thing, after they’re elected. They don’t seem to respond without pressure.

Hate to be that guy, but it is also the present (hopefully not future) the Democrats have allowed Republicans to build:

Bill Clinton promised to codify Roe v. Wade into law. He didn’t.

Obama promised to codify Roe v. Wade into law. He didn’t despite having a super-majority in his first two years.

Biden promised to codify Roe v. Wade into law and didn’t. The Dobbs decision was taken in June 2022, so before the midterms when Democrats still had a simple majority in the house and a tie + VP in the senate. When there were rumors/leaks a month or so before the decision that the USSC would take that decision soon. Again: Inaction.

There’s two problems with your last post which have to do with physics.

1. Fuel Cells and the process of hydrolysis have a limit on their efficiency. Just like with ICEs there isn’t much potential there.
2. Between Hydrolysis and the Fuel Cell, there are other lossy processes. Usually the tanks contain pressurized H2 and depending on the usecase even liquid H2. Modern automobile cases use 700-800 bars of pressure. That process is again at around 85% efficiency in a good case. Cooling applications further deteriorate the efficiency and need more energy for storage and/or losses during storage. There are other technologies in research right now, like metal hydride storage, where we’ll have to see what exactly they can do (right now we’re at the stage where we are promised an all-purpose hype, but mostly through the media and not the ones doing the work)

I’m not disputing that capitalism has it’s thumb on the scale; as you’ve written, the synergy to use H2 derived from natural gas is one effect, but it doesn’t stop them from advertising it as green. The physical limits though, one cannot argue with. Their effects would mean a lot more infrastructure that is necessary, with it more materials, which are limited too. Even if possible, we have limited construction capacity, which means that it would take us longer to reach the goal, when time is of the essence. Which leads me to the same conclusion, that where the advantages like power density isn’t absolutely necessary or other solutions are not available, use a better solution.

It is not only economic cost though. As I’ve mentioned, materials are also limited (on the same level as: There isn’t enough copper to wire all motors needed to replace all cars today with EVs). And it needs alot of surface area compared to the concentrated power plants of the past, which means an even bigger impact on the biosphere (especially if not done on rooftops in cities but in mountain ranges or fields, etc.). Don’t get me wrong; solar energy, if done right, is the only source that doesn’t interfere with natural cycles and does not increase entropy of the planet (which makes it actually sustainable). Using it inefficiently though, means inefficient use of other resources which are limited. (Not only economic. But on that note: Public infrastructure is always built with costs in mind, because we shouldn’t waste tax money, so we can do a better and more comprehensive job with what we have.)

So if there is a more efficient way to store energy for long periods, then it should take precedence over a very inefficient one. This will get complex since it is very much dependent on the local conditions such as sunshine, water sources and precipitation, landscape, temperatures, grid infrastructure and much more. As an engineer, I would throw in though, that if you need this secondary storage, that is not much cheaper, doesn’t have some very essential advantage, or doesn’t mitigate some specific risk, but is much more inefficient over your primary storage, then the system’s design is… sub-optimal to put it mildly.

For the argument of exploring everything: We simply can’t. More precisely we could, but it would need much more time, money and resources to arrive at the goal. And since climate catastrophe is already upon us, we don’t have that time and need to prioritize. Therefore a technology that has a physical, not human-made, efficiency limit loses priority as a main solution. That doesn’t mean, that H2 should not be looked into (for specific purposes, where it is essential or the reuse of existing infrastructure is the better option), but that we have to prioritize different avenues, with which we can take faster strides towards true carbon neutrality.

P.S. it doesn’t help, that today’s H2 is almost exclusively derived from natural gas.

I agree that H2 can have certain applications as a bridge technology in some industries, but there is a very important parameter missing in your premise.

Even if solar power seems “free” at first glance it really isn’t. It needs infrastructure, e.g. Photovoltaic Panels and lots of it. So just having H2 instead of a battery for an application means, it needs thrice the PV capacity or even more and with it the grid capacity. Now add to that, we aren’t just talking about replacing electricity from fossil fuel plants by PV, but about primary energy as a whole, which makes the endeavor even more massive. Also H2 will not magically become much more energetically efficient in its production, transport, storage and usage, because there are physical limits. (Maybe with bacteria for production) The tech could and should get better concerning longevity of the electrodes for example. Also as the smallest molecule out there, storage will never be completely without losses. And long term storage requires even more energy and/or material.

All this is to say, that efficiency is still paramount to future energy supply, since also the material is limited or just simply because of costs of infrastructure and its implications on the biosphere. Therefore such inefficient energy carriers as H2 or what people call “e-fuels” should be used only where the enormous power and/or energy density is critical. H2 cars should therefore never be a thing. H2 or e-fuel planes, construction machines or tractors on the other hand could be more appropriate uses.

To be fair, business development wasn’t the main hangup for many of the people I know. The two main reasons I heard (and partly raised myself), was firstly the detrimental effect on expanding solar- & wind-energy-production. And secondly overreaching, i.e. not limiting the protection to the environment, but also include townscape protection and historical sites, essentially further restraining residential development (including changing them into more dense usage) in a time where living space is scarce and expensive.

When the pro-side has its reservations, then of course it doesn’t help that the executive (Federal Council) is dominated by pro-corporate ideology and have brought forward arguments of “damaging the business location”. But making it out to be the only reason is just dishonest.

Generally yes, but I believe it is best done on a case by case (meaning type of sports, level and skillset) basis.

Generally on the recreational level, the differences between the sexes are much smaller than the differences within one sex. The best example that comes to mind is Tennis. Although it is physical in that it requires a lot of high-speed strength, which theoretically should be an advantage (on average) for young men, the skill difference between a man and another is far greater than that between an average man and an average woman. Go to a public court and you’ll see a non-ignorable amount of women outplaying men (if they even dare to play each other) and what’s even more baffling, older people beating younger people. On the absolute elite level though, they seem to almost play a totally different sport. Ball speed, running speed, ball spin and variety in spin on average are very different on the WTA compared to the ATP and therefore similar but different tactics and even technical styles are employed in the two. The difference within the Top 100 ATP or Top 100 WTA is much smaller than the average Top 100 WTA and average Top 100 ATP. So on that level, imho the segregation is merited.

As some others have already suggested, there might be better criteria to judge this separation on, like with weight class for martial arts. It is not always clear where that divider should be, though. As for tennis: Is it body weight or height? Maybe your fastest or average first serve? Maybe your fastest or average ground stroke? 30m Sprint time? Wherever you put that line might change the nature of the game played in that group and not even eliminate the de facto separation on sex or age, but in turn make it unattractive for some people to engage in a competition in the first place.

Which comes back to my initial statement of judging it case by case depending on the average difference between sexes and the difference within sexes.

edit: replaced gender with sex. Didn’t think of it because in my native language this distinction isn’t made.