Picking wild flowers disrupts the circle of life, artificially growing flowers requires energy, fertilizer and insecticides which also disrupts the circle of life. Best option is to buy her broccoli instead. Don't wrap it though, wrapping paper is basically really flat chopped trees with a layer of chemicals on top. No ribbons either. Maybe some sauce, but not milk/yoghurt/egg-based.
I like it too, but it's like comparing a convenience store around the corner with the big box supermarket across town. Many similarities but it's much more limited. Do think it deserves more attention though, it works really well if you ask me.
You could give Photopea a try, if you're looking for a free (as supported) alternatives, it has all core functions and a interface that looks very familiar. No installation required so you can easily test it, and use it in any browser (not sure how well it works without mouse and keyboard or low end devices though).
If you want more than core functionality I don't think there is a (legally) free option out there.
Ps = Photoshop
Id = InDesign
Pr = Premiere
Ae = After Effects
Dw = Dreamweaver
I don't know what Xd stands for, because everyone just calls is Xd but it is UI/UX design like figma and sketch. Ai is confusing but they use it for (Adobe) Illustrator, possible they thought Il would be more confusing
should be? yes. could be? if one of the big corpo's with money decides to spend it, yes. But don't assume 'there has to be one', it's not like file formats suddenly appear like a rare insect or something.
Is there also an AI non-original? Nvm, my sorting showed this first so I didn't get it was a reaction to something. This is way better, what was someone thinking when they made an almost exact copy of this image? What's the point?
You are just plain wrong, you would see that if you would actually read what's in the source you provide. To be honest I think you just Googled for something that fits your narrative so trying to get a point across might not be worth my time, but to explain what is in the information you provided:
First of all, this data covers bilateral aid to Ukraine between January 24, 2022 and December 31, 2024. In other words, the data covers nearly 3 years while the article writes about 2024 only. Since the data you provide isn't about the same time period as the article I posted, it is not relevant to your argument.
Second of all, you can see in the graph this is about 3 kinds of aid. Of that $114 bn, 64 is in militairy aid and 64 is financial aid. Both of those are not included, as i explained to you in my previous post. The actual humanitarian aid the US provided over the time period in your graph only 3.4 Bn is actually humanitarian aid.
I don't disagree that the headline would be more precise if it specifically said humanitarian aid instead of international aid when the article would be about aid from the us (or any other country) to another specific country, as it would be about bilateral aid. International aid in this case can also mean the aid that is given internationally, as in, multiple nations giving aid to multiple nations. But I don't care about your argument about the preciseness of the headline.
You're point is that the article is wrong and so poorly written it is basically misinformation and I do not agree at all. But I'm not going to explain why that is bullshit, I've wasted enough time. If you want to believe your own truth, be my guest.
Instead of aid to developing countries, the headline says international aid.
Aid to Ukraine is international aid, but Ukraine is not a developing country.
Yes, the headline says international aid because it is not only aid to developing countries.
The article explicitly mentions it is because governments choose to spend their money internally, have you even read it??
huppakee @ huppakee @lemm.ee Posts 5Comments 497Joined 4 mo. ago
It be more ironic if this happened in front of a private chauffeur/ hire your getaway driver joint, but ok