Holocaust victims were people targeted by the government of Nazi Germany based on their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, disability or sexual orientation For specified groups like the Jews, genocide was the Nazis’ primary goal. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), the Holocaust was “the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazi regime and its collaborators”.[1]
Including 7.8 million soviet civilians and POWs in the count kind of seems like a revisionist definition of what the holocaust was to include anyone killed in the war. To undermine how much focus was on the jews pre-war.
Google (used to) scrapes the specific details authorized by robots.txt and uses it to make your content visible.
OpenAI scrapes everything it can technically see, ignoring robots.txt and feeds i to a black box and regurgitates it claiming it’s something new, that it deserves to be paid for.
Quite different actually.
Its there. But nothing in the headline about who or what or why it matters. Just enough to be able to say they didn’t bury it.
Depopulation through declining birthrates seems a lot better for economies than depopulation through massive drought, famines and pestilence brought on through climate change.
When will they stop seeing this as a problem that needs to be solved, rather than a solution a number of problems we’re currently experiencing?
Don’t buy those guns idiots
I guess I misinterpreted when they talk about LNG pipelines.
That isn’t much comfort though, since gas leaks are both more likely and more difficult to contain.
They pipe it in liquid form, LNG.
And more leaks than they report.
Well pointed out. Too bad the emissions are higher than anyone connected with the industry is willing to admit.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2023/12/11/Alberta-Methane-Super-Emitter/#
Seems good. Until you realize they just shifted to ‘Natural Gas’. Aka liquid methane, which in the short term traps heat 80 times worse than CO2 for about 20 years.
Those wasn’t a move to help the environment, just to make to oil barons richer.
If someone doesn’t like how I look, oh well, that’s life. Seems this is a lesson most people learn in grade school - some people aren’t going to like you, you’re not going to like some people.
You’re not entirely wrong, but you’re also totally missing the fact that people are 100% judged by stature and not just in attractiveness, but in their value period.
The taller you are, the higher salary people will assume you already are making. During hiring, this means you’ll be offered a higher starting salary to try and make the offer more appealing to you.
Here’s an article that references the study I’m thinking of. https://merryformoney.com/height-salary/ If you care ,you can maybe dig up the original study somehow.
This sort of bias is pretty inescapable in our culture and will be I think regardless of our language. Preferred body shapes do change over time, even within the span of a single generation. Maybe tying more positive words around these words is part of that change.
Yeah. That’s great for us. How well does our food handle the heat?
If we want to fix the bad stuff corporations are doing, simply put a larger cost on those things. It’s that simple. Pollution, Safety, Health, whatever… price the negative externalities (economic speak for bad things humans don’t want) properly and the market will sort itself out.
The part where it goes right off the rails however, it seems now that its cheaper to buy and own the politicians, and buy and own the media to manufacture consent to kill these regulations than it is to operate responsibly. Which seems to be right around where we are now.
This seems like a poor analogy.
“I don’t have experience with the ‘Megamart Pool TM’ brand of pools, but I’ve got my Lifeguard certificate through a training program that operated at a nearby lake.” Oh sorry, we want our applicants to be familiar with our specific pool with 50+ hours of paid visits logged. Please come back next year after you’ve gather this.
Are there not already words to represent the same thing to anyone old enough to read a message? A different representation of something they are already potentially exposed to isn’t something that technology standards should be censoring.
Especially when the defacto replacement for this is a symbol of something that could very easily give young men a serious sense of inadequacy and insecurity.
edit: (you -> young)
It does add context though.
If I just said “it adds context”, it’s not seen as a counterclaim to your claim. It’s just a new standalone statement.
Depending on where you live, how has home insurance gone in the last 10 years? Trust the money.
But they’re not. Unless you’re claiming all Palestinian kids are Hamas, and then if you are, or if your ready to punish an entire people for the actions of an extremist group, you’re committing war crimes and are well on your way to Genocide.
So maybe a more tactical approach would be better for everyone.
Statistically speaking, employers don’t.
This is why the UAW are asking for 40% raise, because that would bring their pay back in line with what they were making in 2008 in terms of inflation.