If the buffer says 7.5 and it makes up 6 when mixed, either far too little of the buffer was used/there was already something else buffering the solution or the buffer was prepared incorrectly.
By selecting the correct buffer and the correct ratio of salt to acid (such as acetic acid and sodium acetate) an exact pH within a certain range can be reached.
I think it isn't that these other things you mentioned aren't war crimes, but rather that this particular instance involves a lot of evidence that could prove that this was a war crime unequivocally.
You heard other people say that, not me. Go respond to other people who are saying that instead of responding to someone who is NOT saying that (me).
What is your argument here? Honestly I'm confused about what your stance is. How far do you extend this moral equivalency? A strong case can be made that Russia's oil industry is a vital part of its war machine, but I don't think you could say the same about a Ukrainian coffee shop. Is it just as bad to kill a child by bombing a school as it is to kill an adult by bombing a weapons manufacturing facility?
From my perspective Ukrainian strikes are carried out in self defense against military related targets, while Russian strikes are often purposefully hitting targets not related to the military.
I think your implication that a strike on Russian oil infrastructure that kills a civilian working there is equivalent to a strike on a Ukrainian apartment building is wack.
IIRC the reason most caps used to be unrecyclable (many still are) is that they had a liner in them made of a different material. Because such caps were composite materials (using different types of plastic for the liner and the cap), they would make an impure product if recycled. The same problem applies if the cap and bottle are different types of plastic, which used to be more common.
How useful of a platform is it if only selected information is allowed to be shared? From my perspective, it is only useful for Reddit admins want it to be useful for.
In your particular case, it was NOT useful for communicating very important information to your local community, unless I am misunderstanding your post here.
So by you and others continuing to use Reddit instead of committing to another platform, the suppression of information is facilitated/implicitly supported.
Why are you still using Reddit? Haven't Reddit admins proven over and over that they are willing to manipulate content on their platform to influence their users? Haven't they shown you that their platform is worth abandoning??
If nothing else, this experience should demonstrate that it is time to switch to Lemmy full time.
I think there may be more to Ukraine's abstention than being "too busy with their own shit," probably they don't want to annoy the US govt and risk having military aid further reduced.
Don't understand why anyone was still on the masts when they hit the bridge...
They had lost power and all sails were furled, so they couldn't have been moving very fast. And according to this article the ship was taller than the maximum clearance under the bridge. So it seems like someone fucked up big time not getting crew out of harms way.
The bees were on a different lower down roof from the main roof (which is the one that burned). The article notes that bee wax melts at 70C and they didn't see any of that under the hives, so they know temperatures stayed below that. So the bees were likely only exposed to some smoke and maybe some slightly elevated temperatures.
If I were in your shoes, I would probably mention the change in tone/word choice to the lead on the project since you have a good relationship with them. Just mentioning that you noticed the change and aren't sure about it doesn't need to be combative, and I would be truly shocked if it cost you the job. Depending on your state it might even be illegal to fire you for something like that.
I personally would not take a stand or refuse to do the voiceover or anything like that. I would make it clear that I would do the voiceover using the script as it is written. I would think of it as providing feedback rather than making demands, which seems like it would be within the purview of a QA reviewer.
This way you can at the very least get more information about the situation - find out whether this was an intentional change. If so, it may be time to start making moves so you can eventually drop this company.
As I understand it: The long term vision is that by increasing the cost of imported goods, domestic goods will have an easier time being competitive. The short term vision is that tariffs can be used to bully other countries into doing things the U.S. wants.
Tariffs on Chinese goods are a good thing. And I honestly see why the next logical step is tariffs on Mexico because Chinese companies are already building in Mexico so they can assemble there and ship across the border and circumvent tarrifs.
I think China manipulates markets and damages the global economy while making consumers feel like they don't need to value the products they buy because they are so cheap. And I don't think we should be letting China off the hook for the Uyghur genocide/gluttony of human rights violations.
Buy local. I wish it was easier to buy American manufactured stuff.
In all US states except for 2, the popular vote determines who ALL the electors are from that state, so the gerrymandering does NOT have a direct impact on the result of the presidential election, or at least not very much (I believe gerrymandering can affect Maine and Nebraska electoral votes, but only a small number of them, much less than the 10% you suggest would be needed).
Gerrymandering DOES impact things like voter ID laws and other policies that can make it harder for certain people to vote, so in that way you could argue that gerrymandering indirectly affects the presidential election.
If you really want to argue that the presidential elections in the US are rigged, you should focus on voting machines I would say. But even then I think it's a stretch.
I won't deny the oligarchy thing, but I think it's a pretty hot take that the election was predetermined.
Occam's Razor... There are many other possibilities that seem more likely to me. Such as the Biden campaign floundering at the last second - which you could again argue was rigged, but once again, seems to be the less likely thing. You're suggesting that many people would be in on this conspiracy and that ALL of them would stay quiet. All the thousands of regular citizens who participate in the election process would also have to stay quiet. I know some of those people - they are regular people living regular lives. You're also supposing that this cohort of dishonest people would find it advantageous to spend a huge amount of resources on elections - it's pretty incredible how much effort goes into it, and if they already knew what the outcome was going to be, I would think they would act differently (perhaps you argue "that's the point, just to fool you").
We start to paint the picture of a conspiracy to control the American people when they are already under control because of capitalism. Everyone would have been under government control regardless of the election outcome. So I don't understand the supposed motivation for everyone working together to rig the election in Trump's favor. There are oligarchs who this election result does not favor as well, so I don't buy that it is just them pulling the strings. Oligarchs have influence no matter the administration, so why would they care to rig the election? Maybe a few of them would rig it to try to get power (see Musk), but it doesn't make sense that they would all be working together to rig it.
So I don't buy that the Biden and Kamala campaigns were in on it, and I don't buy that election workers were in on it.
I bring up blacklisting because it is the clearest demonstration of intentionally starving people that comes to mind. Sure, Stalin wanted collectivization to go off without a hitch. Problem was, there was a hitch. So he decided it would happen anyway, starving people be damned. Imo good governments don't intentionally starve people in order to achieve their goals.
To me your argument boils down to "the ends justify the means."
How do you defend the "blacklisted" villages? I don't detect any remorse in the material you have cited, just concern over making sure his policies are being properly enacted. It seems pretty clear to me that Stalin considered the loss of life in Ukraine to be worth it in order to drive his agenda forward - why else would he have allowed policies that forbid farmers themselves from eating the food from the fields they tended? Why else would he have allowed policies keeping farmers from traveling for any reason? To ensure that they produced food for the rest of the union, which would focus on industrial output. You can argue that he was right - without such rapid industrialization, they almost certainly would have lost to the Nazis imo.
Also, don't conflate socialism with collectivism. I never said that the gains made in terms of education, life expectancy, etc. were possible without socialist policies. You can have socialism without collectivism/without stalinism. I think it's much better that way.
*there wasn't a country better for the working class that survived
Imo you can't just ignore all the people who died as a result of the rapid industrialization and collectivization. And how great is your life if you have to change everything about what you say and how you act just to appease party officials?
I don't want to ignore all the great things that happened during the Soviet era. I think you're right about better access to education and many of these other things, but there are so many asterisks.
I argue that the same things could have been achieved without collectivization and without so much political violence. Social support programs are great, but they should be available to everyone, regardless of how much you support the prevailing political party.
And just how sure are you that Stalin would have gone back in time to prevent the Holodomor? I'm unconvinced - it quelled an inconvenient uprising.
If the buffer says 7.5 and it makes up 6 when mixed, either far too little of the buffer was used/there was already something else buffering the solution or the buffer was prepared incorrectly.
By selecting the correct buffer and the correct ratio of salt to acid (such as acetic acid and sodium acetate) an exact pH within a certain range can be reached.