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

Lemmy.world is blocked by beehaw as well…

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

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 :/

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.

That’s still like a hundred to one or even way worse. We can simply shove in (group reader doesn’t like) until they are so full that they can’t move any more and then pile on each individually and still have a few billion people preparing the lion BBQ for afterwards.

The numbers gap is ridiculously huge!

The brackets were implied by OP.

I.e. “one way: (be ignorant || approve)”.

The bankruptcy scenario is correct but the first part isn’t: you don’t have X shares as collateral that you can liquidate. Instead, you have collateral to cover sum Y.

As long as the collateral contract covers enough stock positions the bank won’t lose.

That said all of this is assuming standard contracts. If y bank wrote “0% interest and instead 50% of the revenue growth of Twitter” then this would be an easy way to lose money.

Haven’t heard of a stupid banker yet, though, so what would the chances be?

I strongly disagree. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim and this bot has zero transparency regarding its benchmark, database or other criteria. That combined with the fact that it’s usage (apparently exclusively) seems to be highly pushed is enough to stay sceptical.

Personally I just blocked it but I have full understanding for anyone downvoting it, simply to communicate “I disagree with the existence of this bot in this context”

Have you not read either the abstract (“calorie deficit not helping”) or my comment? (“input on the inefficiency of diets is useless to OP without any impulse on what to do instead”)?

I don’t understand of what you’re aiming for with your oneliners.

Whelp that’s not helpful on its own though to be honest. “long term lifestyle change” is the key word I am aware which is… Well at least I didn’t manage it so far. “just do X” is like telling an alcoholic to “just stop drinking, oh but you need a sip every other hour”.

That is a very good point which I haven’t considered!

Thanks :)

I would. Well not against the individual athletes but against their country of origin. Countries screening would need to be better than the IOC ones or en par.

The basic framing is: “your boss fucked up, you’re part of the fallout”.

An alternative would be to allow all doping.

But at the moment the approach is to reward the smartest cheaters and at least for me removed all interest for most sport events.

I agree so much that a simple upvote would be insufficient! That’s the sole purpose of this comment :)

I’d like to invite you to watch V for vendetta. A good actor can do magic even behind a mask!

Edit: I’m not sure how Downey Jr would perform, just want to point out that a mask alone is not a blocker for a great performance.