RunawayFixer @ RunawayFixer @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

389

Joined

2 yr. ago

Those are historical buildings, this discussion was about new construction.

Historically people used to use what was locally available. Most of Italy has plenty of stones, that were also easily accessible, so regular people could build out of stone. But in other regions of Europe there were no stones lying about, so cheap houses were being build out of mud + straw, more expensive ones out of brick and much more expensive ones from imported stones.

Thatched roofs will survive storms without issue. The reason why they aren't used anymore except by rich people is cost: very labor intensive to place and on top of that the thatching has to be replaced every x years. They made sense when labor was cheap and transporting heavy goods expensive.

Hmm, who to believe on this subject. You, or the constructional engineer that travelled on both sides of the pond. Tough call ;)

Relative to the cardboard houses in the usa, houses in Europe are indeed very sturdy. Our concrete houses might not be designed for hurricanes, but they would still fare way better than a house entirely build from stud walls. It's always a bit of a wonder to us that in the usa, houses are being built in a manner that will not survive the next storm. And that that is allowed. The downside of the sturdier European houses is that they take longer and cost more to build, which is also why the average house is smaller.

Here's some obversations from an American engineer travelling in Europe: https://forstconsultingllc.com/blog/european-vs-american-home-construction/

I've stopped giving USA republicans the benefit of doubt years ago, Trump's first year in office was enough to convince me. I've accepted that they are comically evil and that they have no redeeming qualities. So if I see something that is comically evil, then I'm not going to invent possibilities of why it might not be as bad, because in my experience it will turn out that after a little digging, it's actually worse.

Also the administration was given the opportunity to justify or explain their actions by the reporter, and they chose not to, most likely not because they didn't want to, but because they couldn't do so in a matter that did not make them appear like spiteful bigots. There's no point in inventing possible defenses for them if they could not provide them themselves.

They have already created gender neutral restrooms, according to the article these windows are not in those.

There's 2 stalls visible in the picture. The walls are not floor to ceiling, the doors have larger gaps above and though it isn't visible, I expect also a gap below. It's not clear if there are vertical visibility slits on the sides of the doors. But they're clearly just stalls really.

But it doesn't really matter how the stalls are, the way that we know that this is targeted spite and bullying, is that windows are being cut only in a specific subset of the restrooms. They're trying to shame and intimidate the kids that are in those restrooms.

"because it's up to the drivers to not get phished. "

The drivers were not phished, Doordash the company was.

If I do work for a client, send my invoice by mail, that mail gets intercepted by a scammer, that scammer sends on an altered invoice with their bank account number on it, and the client sends a bank transfer to the scammer ... Then the client still owes me money and they still have to pay my real invoice (to me), irregardless of whether or not they manage to reclaim the money that they paid to the scammer.

The technology may have changed, but the same principles apply.

This seemed like such an arbitrary law that I went looking for it and apparently it's a small committee (4 persons*) rule that was poorly substantiated. The rule itself has been shot down by an appeals court in 2023, but the industry obviously had already set plans in motion to change their product line ups.

"On September 13, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the CPSC’s rule on custom window coverings. The court agreed with WCMA that CPSC failed to provide an opportunity to comment on the underlying incident data, conducted a flawed cost-benefit analysis that ignored the enormous harm that the rule would have caused the multibillion-dollar custom window coverings industry, and selected an arbitrary effective date for the rule. The CPSC acknowledges that the industry will need at least 2 years to develop completely new products. So the six-month effective date would make it impossible for the window covering industry to create proven safe replacement products."

https://suncoastblinds.com/understanding-the-cpsc-rule-on-window-coverings-and-the-appeal/

• I'm not from the USA, so to me it seems very weird that this is how decisions with far reaching consequences are taken. In the eu legislation like this gets putten through the wringer in the eu Commission, probably also voted on by the eu Parliament, and then still given years preparation time and back and forth between industry/lobby groups/government. But instead this was: 4 non elected people take a vote and those 4 see no issue with a 6 month deadline. Wth, what a rugpull this would have been for the industry.

Edit to add: that rule that lost in appeal in 2023, was from November 2022, so maybe it does go in effect in november 2024, since it seems like that timetable was the biggest issue for the industry. Just speculating though, can't look it up atm.

A quote from Netanyahu: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas

I already knew that Israel facilitated transfers of funds from other sources, but I didn't know that they also did direct funding and transfers. According to that wiki article, Israel was at least certainly doing that in the 1980s and 90s. Not that it really matters, Israel soliciting other parties to give money to Hamas or Israel directly giving money to Hamas, there's little difference really.

I can't find anything right away about video evidence, but I wouldn't be surprised at this point. I'd love a source for that as well.

It's a bit of a stretch, but Netanyahu used to allow Qatari funds through to Hamas and Qatar is home to the largest USA military base in the middle east. So the USA government spend money in Qatar and Qatar send money to Hamas, so one could argue that some USA tax money ended up with Hamas that way.

But in the same way all economies and trade are interconnected. It's not because my garagist gave money to his addict child, who used part of that money to buy drugs, that I'm now suddenly guilty of funding the drug trade. Money goes around.

The people who vote for her seem like the useful idiots to me, she herself more seems like a traitor to the old values of her country and the purported causes of her party. She loves foreign autocrat dictatorships and there's nothing green about helping republicans win elections.

Yeah, I think the joke isn't working sorry.

Running a ship aground is something the crew does to their own ship. It does not involve other ships, only their own ship + the ground of a landmass.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_grounding

Are you doing research for a personal project or just asking for a friend?

Dogs also love to wrestle over the stick/ball/... Think 2 dogs holding onto the same stick with their teeth while growling and pulling as hard as they can, they're having fun.

The dog I grew up with (malamute) would fetch something once and then have you try to get it out of her mouth, which was impossible to win for a human, so you'd have to feign giving up and then she'd drop it. And if you then threw away the object again, she would give you "the look" after which she would saunter off and ignore you. So I'm pretty certain that she didn't like fetching, but she loved wrestling and pulling.

Reporting what questionable government sources say without enough due diligence is not the same as supporting the actions of that government. If I say that Davy was beating up Mark because Mark stole his cookie according to him, but then it turns out that there never was a cookie, then me wrongly reporting about the cookie does not mean that I ever approved of Davy beating up Mark.

I found that the NYT editorial board opposed the war in an opinion piece that was released just prior to that war, so I'm of the opinion that they opposed it. Probably as one of the few media outlets in the USA.

And I find it funny that the first and most prominent article in the pbs link is the NYT criticizing the reporting of the nyt, that's promising at least. The smh article reads like it's written to lay the blame for being dragged into the war with someone else, a narrative of "we were all duped, if only we could have known beforehand and we would have acted differently", conveniently ignoring that there were enough other international sources that called out and demonstrated that the wmd evidence was very flimsy.

Do you have examples of that support? Or an article/report that lays it out.

When I looked for it, I only found the opposite; https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/saying-no-to-war.html

So I'm thinking out loud here and this is probably going to be controversial ... But what if Harris took on a comedian (or an oaf) as communications director, to purposely do gaffes and create controversies, so maybe the for profit media might like her more. Basically a modern court jester.

I always thought things like Sean Spicer hiding in the bushes were very funny. A bit embarrassing for sure, but also pretty funny.

I nearly always scroll lemmy on my phone, so when I can't find the Waldo right away, I zoom in and start panning around. But with this find Waldo picture, I can actually spot the leopard easier when not zoomed in. It just pops out for me, my cat has probably trained me too well.

I think the issue with the boredpanda picture is that the original photo was already fuzzy (long distance shot I think) and a compressed jpeg. Someone at boredpanda then cut out a too small part of that and jpeg compressed it a 2nd time, giving the leopard additional dazzle camouflage on top of it's natural camouflage.

https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/0b31d94e3bff7d6804274d24562f62cd?width=1024

From https://www.escape.com.au/news/snow-leopard-perfectly-camouflaged-in-mountain-terrain-baffles-the-internet/news-story/bcc5e99d35292787175a13f489ebd7aa. Brought to you by reporters copying things of reddit, but at least escape didn't butcher the image, unlike boredpanda.

The photographer's website wouldn't load for me, so I don't know if it has a better quality available.

Apart from that 1 diner, she is also openly supportive of several talking points of Russia, such as saying that ... nato expansion is to blame for Russia invading countries; the USA shouldn't support Ukraine; after the euromaidan revolution neo-nazis came to power in Ukraine ...

And she also has geopolitical goals of Russia that she thinks are good ideas, which she basically shares with Trump: supporting Brexit, disbanding NATO and saying that the USA should abandon smaller nations to Russian and Chinese aggression for appeasement. Worded differently of course, but that's what it comes down too.

And she must also know that Russian agencies have massively promoted and aided her in the past. She's more than a useful idiot for Russia imo.