As a Berliner, it doesn’t match my memory either. I don’t have historical data other than my own shitty memory, but I remember vaguely getting upset at Döner prices during the Pandemic being above 3,50€ (so in 2020).

It gets better. He resold one of the paintings in question for a profit of 320 million$. He is suing because his speculative profit wasn’t big enough.

Huh. Cool stuff. Today I tee-totally learned something new.

For me it was kind of the opposite. I care less about getting shit faced and more about flavours. Getting buzzed is just a pleasant side effect.

Fair enough I can see that.

Also beverages when hosting a party. No need to buy name brand when store brand is half the cost and will get drank the same anyway.

People will drink it, but they may also remember. I have a cousin at whose house I turn tea-totaller, because the beer & wine they offer at parties is literally the cheapest stuff available and it’s fucking horrible.

Specifically for Ukraine there is also the fact that, when your country is under attack, nationalists are the first ones to sign up to fight the invaders. It’s like their whole thing. And the intersection in the Venn diagram of Nazis and nationalists is usually almost a circle.

There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
2. Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
   • It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
   • It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.

So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?

Isn’t that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it’s fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.

Where is the issue?

This article seems bad.

The only sources cited are RAC (Retailers Against Crime) and their employees. If there really had been a major bust against organised crime as they claim, wouldn’t there be confirmation by the Scottish police (who RAC is cited as claiming they cooperated with and made these arrests?).

So why is not a single government or police source being cited? Did they just copy a press release from RAC?

Actually, no.

The science is quite precise, if largely theoretical. Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism. If you’d read it you would have found the following paragraph:

Their results showed that we’re not necessarily headed for certain climate doom. We might follow quite a regular and predictable trajectory, the endpoint of which is a climate stabilization at a higher average temperature point than what we have now.

Basically they are saying “this new method (which is a very macroscale perspective) does not predict a stabilization at preindustrial climate given the amount of change the system already has experienced. Also if we really want to we can probably kick earth into a runaway greenhouse system”.

They do not claim that we are already at that point nor that we will inevitably cross it. Only that it is possible for us to do it.

Because they see “Jew” and think “Zionist”.

I’m not down voting you because I disagree with your pick, but because this answer needs to be at the very bottom of the thread.

It’s a trilogy of children’s books, where the first two get a movie each and the last book is split into 2.

I love “yeet cap rn”.

Inconveniencing oil execs achieves absolutely nothing. You will never change someone’s opinion whose livelyhood depends on holding that opinion. The climate crisis will not be confronted by oil execs and any meaningful measures will not have their support. Protesting them is a waste of time.

The only way to achieve anything is to increase the immediate right-now cost of doing nothing over the cost of doing something. The cost in annoyance, money, time and for the people that can be persuaded, ie. the general public.