I'm sure this has been solved already but I'm just wondering how you ensure people are voting based on the helpfulness and/or merit of the response. That's the ideal on Lemmy but it's obviously not always the case here. Presumably, you'd have to be logged in on the other platform to vote but you can just see the discussion from Lemmy, I guess?
Useful constraints would focus discussion to keep questions/replies brief, relevant, and hopefully helpful, wouldn't they? I just wonder how up and downvoting would work since that would go very differently from Lemmy.
A bunch of young trees don't equate to old growth forests in any sense and it's even worse if the species hasn't evolved in in balance with that environment's other species and conditions.
So it's not even just that the tree needs to survive. On top of that we need to put time and resources into the right mix of regionally native trees which will thrive and integrate into their surroundings to properly reform ecosystems over numerous decades that we don't even have.
I was already blocking ads since long ago, so what really bugs me now is the heavily degraded and incredibly off-putting search results these days. (Fixed that godawful UI change right away too, and I'm just not over having to use an outside search engine for accurate results.)
Maybe I'm being naive, but in the absence of solid evidence, my working assumption is that they have some satellite pattern of people who have parts of the spectrum of traits they want, but not all of them. If so, then that means that although they would suppress it for the job, some of them surely have a conscience.
But I admit this is all hypothetical, just based on things I've read and some specific testimony I heard in a podcast that shed more light on things recently.
Anyway, I did a slight edit above: probably --> "possibly."
I can only speak for myself and not OP here but if she left, then probably possibly not. The career folks? Definitely. If their hiring profile is anything like that of the CIA, they have a specific preference for sociopaths/narcissists-- folks who are very good at manipulating others.
It doesn't. Graeber was an anthropologist and Wengrow is an archaeologist. It's a review of existing evidence from past civilizations (the diversity of which most people are hugely ignorant about), making the case the most common representations of "civilization" and "progress" are severely limited, probably to a detrimental extent since we often can only base our conceptions of what is possible based on what we know.
You could check Urban Dictionary online, but as I understand it, pop off usually means to say or do something to great effect (such as effectively speaking truth to power). Doesn't have to only be about speech or putting someone in their place, but it often is.
That's highly subjective, but the fascinating book The Dawn of Everything argues otherwise. There are even parts about the anthropological evidence some peoples just up and changed systems every so often (yes, non-violently). Our problem as people in the modern era is many can't imagine anything else, not that no one ever did.
The appropriate, historically accurate comparison is to student protests against South African apartheid and he knows it. Reportedly, those very protests grew into the strong boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement that ended apartheid in South Africa. This is what he fears and what corporate media is actively trying to prevent.
Only people with no information on either the actual history or current situation are going to fall for this baseless slander. Sadly there are probably still a number of those around.
Yes, because the requirement for extensive infrastructure running across large stretches of land makes market entry nearly impossible for new competitors (while also being disruptive for customers if it does become possible).
If by the nature of the product or service there is no ease of switching providers and if the thing is a necessity to get by in the modern world, it shouldn't be (solely) private.
This article isn't just about random raw materials entering the atmosphere, it's specifically about the potential dangers of pollution of the magnetosphere and ionosphere with magnetic metal dust. The author claims to be the only one out there studying this but isn't the only one who has expressed such concern. From the conclusion:
“Our technical civilization poses a real danger to itself,” Carl Sagan warned in his 1997 book Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium. The magnetosphere is our first line of defense against an otherwise lethal solar system, and any pollution of it should be intensely studied and monitored. Indeed, if an asteroid the size of a Starlink satellite was headed towards Earth, it would activate planetary defense monitoring. But since it’s a human-made object impacting the atmosphere, we don’t monitor it at all.
Space companies need to stop launching satellites if they can’t provide studies that show that their pollution will not harm the stratosphere and magnetosphere. Until this pollution is studied further, we should all reconsider satellite internet.
India and Israel are just farther along on the same path we're on in multiple countries in the West. Fascism feeds off the rising inequality and exploitation of Capitalist excesses. It could easily have barrelled ahead further here first if dominant groups here were any less accepting of cultural differences (we could still do better, but we're at least at the bare minimum of civility) AND if we weren't as religiously unaffiliated and/or atheistic*.
(*This is not a knock at spirituality. I only say this because another calling card of fascism is for the dominant local culture's religion to be contorted into its absolute worst, most corrupt possible form so it may be weaponized in whipping up monstrous sentiments towards scapegoated outcast groups.)
With all the Jeff Taylor farmers' revolt garbage that get pushed at my father on Youtube (even though the content he actually chooses has never been like that), I was expecting this to happen for a while now. We're not in Europe ourselves, but the media onslaught by certain interests has clearly done its job.
When I did that work, they encouraged everyone to put people on hold when looking anything up because it reset your call timer and made the numbers look better.
Actually the history of why they think that is probably steeped in the horrors of how what little info they do have was obtained. Involuntary operations without anaesthetic on any women of colour and white mental health facility patients, graverobbing, you name it and it was probably done. Also, the decades of not including women as subjects in medical research even when it specifically applied to the female reproductive system didn't help.
I'm sure this has been solved already but I'm just wondering how you ensure people are voting based on the helpfulness and/or merit of the response. That's the ideal on Lemmy but it's obviously not always the case here. Presumably, you'd have to be logged in on the other platform to vote but you can just see the discussion from Lemmy, I guess?