First off, i live in Europe, so i honestly don’t know too much about politics in other parts of the world, other than what i sometimes see in the news. I hope my innocent question doesn’t trigger any nastiness....
They exist, but are only really relevant at the local level, or rarely as a spoiler effect if one gets vaguely popular. This isn’t so much that people don’t want other options, but mostly because the US system is badly designed. The US has a first past the post, winner take all type system, ie, if you win the most votes in a given election, you win that spot and it’s all yours. That makes some intuitive sense, but is actually not the most democratic option, as it means that parties that have, say, 20% of the population supporting them don’t get 20% of the seats, they get none of them, because for each individual seat, they won’t win the most votes. Worse, such a party will cause the major party it is less similar to to win, because it’s voters voted for them rather than the major party it was most similar to, so even if the voters on that side of the political spectrum are in the majority, their votes are split among multiple parties where their rivals that stay as one party can then be the single largest one. The US system accidentally makes it mathematically inevitable for two and only two parties to dominate.
Historically they have switched up once or twice, when one party became so unpopular that it basically became nonviable, and a different party rose to replace it, and once the current major parties have swapped ideology more or less, but this kind of thing is very rare.
I mean, that does happen with a lot of traditionally scary monsters to be fair. Look at how cutesy Halloween monsters sometimes get portrayed as, or dragons, which at least in the European sense would traditionally have been dangerous and scary monsters but nowadays are just as often friendly or protective as they are hostile.
I mean, I sort of imagine it to be less the “rule on the books” part, and more the “do we actually have the physical capacity to enforce those rules” end of it. They cant really imprison him (I mean while he’s feeling guilty he might stay willingly, but they cant keep him in if he eventually changes his mind, so itd more be him imprisoning himself). Trying to despite the futility of it would seem somewhat dangerous, because again, if he should ever change his mind, you clearly dont want to seem hostile to something with that kind of power, especially when you dont have it. Saying “Our law is not sufficient for you” could just be interpreted as the most diplomatic way given his mental state to justify leaving and not returning.
I remember reading somewhere (probably my high school textbook) that one of the reasons people don’t like wind power being built is they cause visual pollution....
I find them comforting in a reassuring, kinda awe inspiring way. Like, they’re a visual sign of at least trying to address climate change, and there’s something about having a giant, obviously artificial moving structure towering over the landscape that just gives me a sense of thrill and wonder that we are capable of building that. Those things are pretty massive if you get anywhere close to one, after all.
I mean, he might have liked it, it’s not a bad movie and it’s not a terrible adaptation of the story either. Probably would have to first explain the context of what the muppets are and a bit about the various characters to really get some of it though
I mean, isnt this a thing in comedy, where you can make the jokes of the one being funny have more impact by contrasting them with a super serious character? Scrooge is already a normally quite serious character, and the muppets are known for their antics, so leaving the comedy to them and acting serious makes a lot of sense.
(Sarcasm aside, what’s so worrying about lizards? Only a couple types are venomous, only a few more are big enough to seriously hurt you (and most of those live in tropical forest sort of places), and anything smaller is probably just going to run away and hide it you get close to it. Lizards are pretty non-threatening.)
To be fair on the deer, no natural predator is going to be chasing them at that kind of speed, so their instincts have no reason to be adapted to understanding objects moving that fast
Last time I saw this kind of challenge it was on reddit and I just replied with ℝ, but people brought up that this leaves out complex numbers. I’ll now contend, however, that any number not included in that isn’t real.
didnt some religion have a concept where since they believe god infallible, any loophole in the rules must therefore be intended, possibly as a reward for the cleverness of finding it? I forget which one that was
My Stellaris empires always end up starting more like the vulcans with a focus on science and mostly peaceful exploration, and end up a society of soul-crushing academia that will compromise their own sanity, values and safety for any chance at powerful or dangerous knowledge, ruling over a collection of random protectorates that they maintain for little reason other than diplomatic influence and to have someone to lord their vastly supervisor tech over.
I mean, isn’t the entire concept of the Fermi paradox that given the universe is so large and old, it seems surprising that we see no signs of aliens anywhere, and therefore some explanation must exist for why we have not? That’s more focused on intelligent life than extraterrestrial life of any sort I suppose, but given it’s even named a paradox in the first place, someone must find it surprising
There are plenty of other communities people made, just most didn’t become very active. If the Linux memes are everywhere, it’s because those are the people actually active here
The news communities outside of lemmy.ml are probably a better bet than the ones on lemmy.ml, because the lemmy devs themselves seem to hold that kind of view, and they run that instance.
By definition, something offensive must be something that can cause someone to take offense. Saying “haha, people get offended when I say offensive things” is rather redundant.
The article suggests that this actually breaks down the chemicals in some way, which sounds a bit better than actually vaporizing the stuff like the title suggests
I mean, is that not par for the course for superpowers, historically? The US just has a wider area that it can reach in that regard, due to better technology of the current era
I mean, the United States has, to be fair, developed a food culture that emphasizes using a lot of meat, especially over the past century or so. It’s not surprising that people from an area that eats so much meat, who go vegan, are going to want to look for ways to still make dishes familiar to them
I mean like even if someone is for example criminal or scumbag they are still human and hoping for someone to die or make jokes of someone's loss of life isn't right. Or does someone think it is justified? I think it's morally wrong.
The way I see it, making jokes about this kind of thing is a fundamentally human reaction. People often react to grim scenarios with humor, consider all the jokes about things like wars that exist- and being trapped in a failing submarine is a pretty grim thought that people might seek to distract themselves from by twisting it into humor. I don't think joking about an event like this that resulted in deaths is the same thing as wishing for people to die, they are, after all, already dead, and uncomfortable as the thought is, the dead are not as far as we can probably know capable of taking offense to anything. There is no possible harm that jokes or anything else can do to them anymore.
Obviously I would consider it pretty rude to joke about it around someone who knew one of the deceased, since you can at least cause emotional distress to those people, but I don't see a problem with joking about it on the general internet.
Another thing to consider is that some of the jokes have been mocking the quality of the sub itself, rather than the people on board (save for the ceo I guess). If you cheap out on stuff and that decision kills people, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to mock you over it.
US: No mention of other political parties, other than republicans and democrats?
First off, i live in Europe, so i honestly don’t know too much about politics in other parts of the world, other than what i sometimes see in the news. I hope my innocent question doesn’t trigger any nastiness....
Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey and the Blustery Day (lemmy.world)
Just a little bit (i.imgur.com)
Does wind power cause visual pollution in your opinion?
I remember reading somewhere (probably my high school textbook) that one of the reasons people don’t like wind power being built is they cause visual pollution....
Charles Dickens Watches "The Muppet Christmas Carol" [R. E. Parrish] (startrek.website)
Website: reparrishcomics.com
“I come from the slums; I come from a hard background; I come from a poor family; and I was a soldier.” (lemmy.ca)
Chill. They didn't actually tell their family to buy crypto. (lemmy.world)
I’ll be waiting in the car (lemmy.world)
Ooooo lights (lemmy.world)
Fascinating... (lemmy.world)
gatekeeping (mander.xyz)
Weapons of Gas Production (lemmy.today)
soak and jump hump (feddit.de)
Peace is too much effort. Suffer in silence. (startrek.website)
"Earth-like" (startrek.website)
Why? Are we not doing enough? (file.coffee)
by fedidb.org
Was it not ripe enough or something? (startrek.website)
deleted_by_moderator
the right reacting to a leftist meme (lemmy.ml)
ain't got no rizz (lemmy.ml)
New Portable Water Treatment System Vaporizes 99% of ‘Forever Chemicals’ (www.extremetech.com)
America is Socialist for War (lemmy.world)
Vegan food: The west vs India (lemmy.ml)
What do you think of people making memes/jokes about the recent Titan tragedy?
I mean like even if someone is for example criminal or scumbag they are still human and hoping for someone to die or make jokes of someone's loss of life isn't right. Or does someone think it is justified? I think it's morally wrong.