It was added to the “exclude” list in an apparently unrelated commit three days ago with absolutely no explanation. Glancing at its front page I see nothing objectionable, just a lot of anime stuff. When challenged u/dessalines had nothing to say other than “no, that is full of CSAM” and just closed the discussion without further comment.
Unless some more info comes to light it does not look good. Probably as good a time as any to depart from lemmy.ml.
It is often heard from non-native speakers and will probably be understood, but in the absence of other context it will be perceived as slightly odd. Perhaps it’s on the way to being widely recognized as fully “correct” but I don’t think it’s there yet.
She would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain
Look, I know everyone in Britain is required to know the names and dates of all the monarchs going back to the 9th century, but expecting everyone to be able to come up with that name when put on the spot is going a little too far.
I thought the plan was immediate violent revenge? Gaza has been under siege since 2007 and if it ever seemed likely that it was all part of a grand strategy that could some day end in peace, that time is long past.
Indeed, I am convinced of it. Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to help fill in my ignorance there. It was a pleasure being your crazy person on the internet for the day.
I dunno, maybe they changed the terminology since I took it. Seems to me “free market” was not previously imbued with all that meaning you guys are reading into it. I’m not convinced it isn’t just an Americanism. To me a “free market” is simply one that’s substantially free of distortion, resembling to a notable extent a perfect market. But I’ll certainly avoid the phrase in future.
If it involves “an oligopoly, a cartel, or a monopoly” then it is not a “free market” according to what they taught me in econ 101, everything convincing that I’ve heard since, and what Adam Smith explicitly wrote down when he first described the idea. Wikipedia cites Karl Popper in saying that in classical economics a free market is one that’s “free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities,” and that it’s a market in which economic rents are minimised. A monopoly is by definition antithetical to a free market. Any neoliberal suggestions that attacking the whole concept of public regulation of markets will always make them more free are simply lies, and should not be accepted.
That there is at present little or nothing preventing any imperfectly but approximately free markets that might otherwise exist devolving into less free ones dominated by monopolies, cartels, corrupt and captured regulators, out-of-control rent seeking, frauds that rely on information asymmetry, and other such perversions is (obviously, I thought) the reason why I’ve been consistently saying that “free” markets are not something we see much of in reality. Perhaps that’s not exactly congruent with Marxism, but I don’t think it’s inconsistent with it either.
The free market is an abstract concept, one which rarely exists in anything like its ideal form due to its instability under current conditions of capitalist development. The original definition given by classical economics is still the prevalent one. Despite what slogans from some proponents of capitalism would have you believe, not only are free markets not identical with it, but capitalism tends to take markets further and further from anything resembling their theoretically ideal state of freedom.
A “free market” as the term is usually understood is a well-defined thing, which of course has many problems and failure modes, but is not well-represented by a market dominated by a large cartel routinely controlling prices. It is also not the same thing as capitalism.
Really? I thought the most infamous example of triangular trade was more of a mercantilism thing.
Actual free markets are almost as rare as actually existing socialism.
That classic free market system where a cartel has regular meetings to set production levels to maximise their profits.
“4 censures” doesn’t seem like a large number, accusing them of paraphilia is beside the point and makes it look like the objection is simply to queer people existing, and you should really gather more evidence than that before going around accusing anyone of pedophilia in this day and age.
On the other hand I had a look at that instance, and I would not federate with it.
What Zelenskyy didn’t know is that “would you like to buy some wheat” is a dire insult in Polish.
deleted by creator
You have given lemmy very little to go on here, so pick whichever answer you prefer.
Hypothesis 1: The culture of which you are a part has established gender roles which lead to its women typically being more emotionally open and empathic than the menfolk.
Hypothesis 2: For similar cultural reasons, women around you tend to favour a communications style that happens to be more compatible with the one you have developed for yourself, leading to easier mutual understanding.
Hypothesis 3: You have some hang-ups of your own about sex which are making you more receptive to female company than male.
About 3,000 adolescents in Texas, ages 13 to 17, were questioned between 2015 and 2019. The researchers compared the results with responses from more than 32,000 teens in the broader United States.
To me this appears garbled in the usual science journalism way, although it doesn’t change the overall gist of it which seems legit. They analyzed each population separately and found significant results in both populations. Reported vaping was associated with an additional chance of asthma of something approximately like 0.1% to 3% at the 95% confidence interval among US adolescents, the exact range depending on numbers not included in the excerpt provided on Science Direct.
Edit: I initially thought the 15-19 age range, being the only one I saw mentioned in the excerpt, was the one studied. That does not appear to be the case. That complicates things in a way that makes it unclear precisely where the bounds of that confidence interval are when described in a way that quantifies the overall public health risk. Read the full study if you need more precise information.
If they want to ban tobacco let them first legalise weed, acid, and psylocybin. That’d be a fair trade.
Don’t believe any graph whose y-axis starts at any value but 0 people.
This one is pretty bad but that is definitely not the right lesson to take from it. The one thing it does show us is that approximately 20k extra new users suddenly showed up compared to the trend, and that would be much more difficult to see if the relevant axis did start at zero. The bigger problem is that it shows too short a time span. It’s not clear how unusual this event was, or if it happens every week.
The other weird thing is that bottom-right axis does start at zero for some reason. I’m guessing it might somehow be trying to indicate “toots” specifically made by those new users? But that’s not how it’s labelled and it seems unlikely they could have that data.
I wouldn’t need to be wholly convinced that there’s anything heinous going on over there, just that the person accusing them of it had good reason to think so. So pretty much anything more than no info at all would probably have done the trick. Anyway, thanks for putting up with me for a little while and good luck to everyone at lemmy.ml, but I’m outta here. I’ll probably go try kbin or something.