This is Fine Rule
Firebirdie713 @ Firebirdie713 @lemmy.blahaj.zone Posts 0Comments 75Joined 2 yr. ago
Firebirdie713 @ Firebirdie713 @lemmy.blahaj.zone
Posts
0
Comments
75
Joined
2 yr. ago
Interesting. I have not had any issues using their engine even with the issue with Bing's API, but you are correct that they use Bing's index. Given that there are only four indexes to choose from, that isn't too surprising.
I actually switched to them when I saw that DuckDuckGo was about to start providing 'AI assisted results'. I wanted to ensure I was using an engine that actually respected my privacy and didn't harvest my data for slop.
Anecdotally, I can confirm that the results I get from SwissCows are very different and usually better than the ones I got from DDG. So I wonder how much of Bing's API they use.
I picked a good day to switch to SwissCow lol
https://swisscows.com/en/web?query=%s
Free, uses it's own index, focus on privacy. If there is anything bad about it though, please let me know. It can be hard to find unbiased data on search engines when you ultimately need to use a search engine to find the info, ime.
Disturbed's cover of Sound of Silence is not only awful, it is an antithesis of the meaning of the song. Anyone who likes that version better than S&G's arguably doesn't understand the point of the song, and the fact that everyone holds it up as the gold standard of "covers better than the original" is even worse.
A close second is Postmodern Jukebox and their horrendous tendencies to take tempos to an opposite extreme instead of finding more meaningful ways of changing the genre of a song. I like some of their stuff, but the number of people who love their cover of Welcome to the Jungle is mind-boggling to me.
There are plenty of songs that I prefer the cover of to the original (Whitney Houston's 'I Will Always Love You'), or ones that just give the original a modern coat of paint without changing much else (Smash Mouth's 'I'm a Believer'), but these songs in particular are just awful imo.
If you like that and want more, I also recommend her book The Will to Change. It is about the same length, but goes into much greater detail about the ills that men, especially marginalized men, experience under patriarchy.
Obviously this is a joke, but there used to be an important reason we kept the flags wrinkled like that: it meant that you never knew who had bought a flag at a Pride event and who brought one they owned.
This meant that people who were 'caught' at an event by friends or family they weren't out to, they could say they just bought the flag to support the cause. It also meant there was no way to tell who had been there longer than others.
This is correct, and it isn't just associated with acids. It's because of an effect called 'freezing point depression', which is the same reason salt lowers the freezing point of water while raising its boiling point.
There are a few explanations as to why this happens, with the easiest being this: if you add something that can't freeze to something that can, then the whole thing will need to lose more energy to allow the whole mass to solidify because the un-freezing stuff physically interferes with the attempts of the freezing stuff to bind together.
However, there is also the additional aspect of vapor pressure, which comes into play when adding things that can freeze to another thing that also freezes, but at a different temperature. I don't really understand that at all, so I will pull from the Wikipedia article on it:
The freezing point is the temperature at which the liquid solvent and solid solvent are at equilibrium, so that their vapor pressures are equal. When a non-volatile solute is added to a volatile liquid solvent, the solution vapour pressure will be lower than that of the pure solvent. As a result, the solid will reach equilibrium with the solution at a lower temperature than with the pure solvent. This explanation in terms of vapor pressure is equivalent to the argument based on chemical potential, since the chemical potential of a vapor is logarithmically related to pressure. All of the colligative properties result from a lowering of the chemical potential of the solvent in the presence of a solute. This lowering is an entropy effect. The greater randomness of the solution (as compared to the pure solvent) acts in opposition to freezing, so that a lower temperature must be reached, over a broader range, before equilibrium between the liquid solution and solid solution phases is achieved. Melting point determinations are commonly exploited in organic chemistry to aid in identifying substances and to ascertain their purity.
So, TL;DR is that chemistry is weird, things react weird at the molecular level because of energy states, and that is what allows us to make ice cream!
Avocados and peppers to make guacamole 😋
No, they gave a reason and that reason isn't covered under their policy, so she should still be covered.
If they let her go without a reason, then she would have to prove discrimination. But if they say "You violated our social media policy" and refuse to show how, and she can prove that nothing she did was on violation of the policy as written, then that is a clear case of unlawful termination.
This isn't reddit, there is no rule saying you have to up vote it if you disagree. It's just a space you can put an opinion that you think is unpopular, and no one cares about votes anyways.
Oh I will be having that conversation in a few days. I am taking a lesson from my therapist and letting myself rest from the hurt and decide what kind of resolution I want. I have a history of crumbling when I get pushback for standing up for myself, so giving myself time to sit with the feeling for a couple of days helps my brain realize that what she did was actually bad, and not just me overreacting.
If you are asking if she knew beforehand, yes. We once had to rush out of a restaurant because a dish included wine and I didn't know until my mouth felt like it was on fire. She has been there many times as I have had to explain it to others, and when I have been checking food to make sure it doesn't have wine or vinegar.
If you are asking if I have mentioned it to her since she gave me the gift, no. I haven't had the energy to try to deal with that conversation, I still have plans with people through New Year's. I will probably bring it up in a few days, but right now it hurts to even think about and I just want to get through the rest of the holidays.
My supposed best friends gave me and my husband a bottle of wine for Christmas. I can't drink wine because I have an allergic reaction to something in wine, and they are very aware of this after me having reactions to foods at restaurants we would go to together. So they gave 'us' a gift that I can't actually have.
This comes after my husband and I have spent the last year being there for them through losing their jobs, their car, almost losing their house, and a bunch of other drama. It also comes after we spent all day making a meal free of their allergies, as I always do, and after I spent several days making Christmas cookies that are safe for them.
I don't know if the bottle of wine is cheap or expensive, and it honestly doesn't matter. Last year they got me an ornament for our tree, and it is one of my dearest possessions because it has a small poem about friendship on it. This year's gift stung because of how much of ourselves we gave to them, only for them to clearly pick up something last minute and without any thought.
I don't really have any family or other friends to celebrate with, so the most important people to me besides my husband are them. It hurts to see how little I apparently mean to them in comparison....
Good thing hormones are only prescribed in a minority of trans kids anyways, even though the vast majority of them do not desist as they get older. In fact, the majority of them continue on to transition as adults, and 99.5 or so percent of trans kids given just puberty blockers, much less hormones, grow to adulthood with no regrets.
Also, before you ask, I can provide sources, but that which is declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, especially when the dismissal is in line with literally every major medical organization, including the World Health Organization, due to the sheer amount of clear evidence that transition is a safe and effective treatment for gender dysphoria at any age.
Everything I see talks about how that was directly tied to emergency spending that needed to be signed off on by Congress, and how Biden expanded it while it was in effect and is actively trying to get it renewed, with sources much more recent and detailed that that one.
For example:
But sure, it was Biden who single handedly stole that money from families, even when Congress makes the budget.
That is true, but I am also proof that their stance was at least partially valid. I voted Bernie in the primary and voted third party against Clinton, and I was definitely not alone.
Again, whether actions are justified or understandable, to me, is not reason to excuse the real impacts that the election results had. It wasn't helped by the results for Congress, but no one can deny that the US would be in a much better spot now if Clinton had been president, regardless of who was in charge in Congress. I will continue to support leftists in primaries, and especially in my local and state elections, and I continue to do activist and monetary support as much as I am able. But I hate being told that I am abandoning my values simply because I am voting for the highest chance for fewer people to be harmed.
Nice cherry picking of two examples without sources, while completely ignoring all of the other things Biden did repeal. It also ignores the fact that those things were replaced with better projects that were less susceptible to repeals by future presidents.
Again, I am not saying to vote for all Dems across the board, just not in the Presidential election. I vote third party in my home state for state and local elections because my state (solid blue) is set up in a way that allows for a candidate presented by the third party to run as a Dem as well, allowing people to vote effectively for a party line that makes it clear what actions we want taken while not risking a regressive candidate being elected by a split vote. There are also several blue states that are enacting ranked choice voting, which is also being supported by even most moderate Dems.
If the number of people who died due to benefit cuts, throwing out the pandemic action plan, and direct actions from right wing terrorists who were emboldened by a president who values the speeches and actions of Hitler aren't enough to convince you of how much worse Trump was versus lib Dems, then you are missing the point of the values you claim to have. I support the values I do because they uphold human rights and save lives. What good are those values if my actions lead to the death and dehumanization of thousands, when another choice would have likely saved them?
Really? Because that issue was a combo of actual universal healthcare and climate goals. I voted for the only candidate who had a commitment to those goals. This was before it was revealed that this particular candidate had accepted a whole bunch of money from the RNC to remain in the race.
The result was enough people voted for that candidate that Trump won. The result of his win was that we saw even the half-measures that had been taken on these issues were stripped, setting us back potential decades because of new rules and packed courts who are now going against all precedent and decorum to prevent new leaders from enacting new policies. I voted for a few steps forward instead of half-steps, and got several steps back as a result.
Keep in mind that one of those several steps back was a gutting of voting rights, which is being continued by Trump appointed judges to this day. If you need to be a one-issue voter, vote to keep your right to vote by voting in a way that is most likely to prevent a Trump win. They literally already have a plan on how to remove and bar even more people from voting.
As someone who voted third party in the 2016 election, take it from me that you will feel more guilty if you know your vote could have helped prevent the fascist party from gaining power. The presidency is not the office to try to vote on morals, save that for state and local elections that decide things like state benefits programs, distributions of funds, and public works. The federal government is where you will want to vote for the people who are protecting your right to vote in the first place, and that is done by ensuring that the fascist party can't get a majority or otherwise control a branch of the government.
If the Supreme Court were made up different, maybe, but ending up with an R president just gives them room to pack more courts and see a whole bunch more rights get removed.
And yet rice, beans/lentils, pasta, vegetables, and spices are all vegan, and are all the staples for low-cost meals in grocery stores the world over. Where do you live where that isn't the case?