Sundial @ Sundial @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,252

Joined

1 yr. ago

Hamas did accept it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11/

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority both accepted this resolution.

Everyone knows Hamas would not have accepted releasing the hostages unconditionally. This ceasefire proposal was the product of weeks/months of back and forth and where everyone on both sides agreed was the best way to move forward as it involved concessions on both sides. The US then vetoed it last minute since the killing Palestinians is more important than anything else.

I mean neither of us know how they arrived at the 14% number. So your comparison is not really relevant and I would say it's not a good one even. But in a generic/average month-to-month overview, home ownership is almost always more expensive.

Sounds like you have the fortune of living where these things are cheaper. In Ontario, home insurance is much higher and property tax being less than 1K a year is completely unheard of.

This is more of a case where the article doesn't take the time to explain the nuance. Everyone knows home ownership increases equity. Which is why it costs more.

It was. Just not the way Israel wanted. So the US vetoed it for them.

The toe gets re-used.

That does not reassure me in the slightest lol.

Don't be so sure. Even a lot of Republicans didn't like the idea, which is why Trump had to walk back from it and say he didn't know anything about. Which was an obvious lie. Plus, there seems to be a lot of people who voted Trump who didn't even know what it would bring. I'd imagine a lot of people would be against this.

Once you factor in things it mentions like insurance, taxes, upkeep along with others like a down payment then it's very easy to see where the 14% numbers comes from. Frankly, I'm surprised it's only 14%. There's a lot of additional and hidden costs with home ownership.

Can you imagine if Conservative MPs start revolting against lil PP and cause his popularity to sink the year before the election. I mean they'll likely toe the party line given how popular they are right now. But if it did happen. It would be the funniest thing ever.

In mid-October, residents of Dawson City – notorious as the birthplace of the “Sour Toe” cocktail which included a mummified human toe

Wat?

Interesting read, thanks for sharing OP.

I'm surprised that the author didn't talk more about the rise in fertility issues and it's effect on having children given the growth in infertility rates. It was more of a causal mention in this article.

I agree, it's a useful feature for certain people. I'm just not a big fan of site admins making the decision for you. It should only be used as a last resort IMO or to protect yourself against illegal content, CP for example. Normalizing defederation between instances can be abused by a small amount of bad faith actors. If you as a person don't like a certain culture on an instance or community, just block it yourself.

No one is obligated to do anything. The admins run the site and they can moderate how they feel. As a user, I can join their site or another one if I choose to.

My opinion of defederating is that it should only be used as a last resort. Taking a liberal approach to defederation means that a small amount of bad faith actors can completely shut down an instance and make it a pariah on the fediverse.

It doesn't, except for the ones who like to browse local. And the .world admins have quite a few blocked instances. They seem to be a bit too liberal in defederating to my tastes. I feel as if it runs against the concept of federation itself.

.world is the instance where most new users default to so and it has the highest user base and that includes a lot of trolls or just bad faith actors. Also, a lot of .world is based from reddit users who left and they brought that kind of mindset along. Some people don't like that either.

Geo based IP doesn't always apply and it's more in line for a region than say something like a state. Sure there's some overlap, but you're going to also have a lot of misses.

It very much is. Networks don't work on geographical borders. ISP censorship on a state level would be a nightmare to implement for a specific state without impacting users in a different state. On top of it the government would have to maintain a specific list of IPs they want banned given how easy it is to spin up a new website on a different IP. It's not impossible, but it would be a nightmare to implement.

Because the rich control an overwhelming amount of the media we consume. They are capable of shaping the narrative to their benefit.