a4ng3l

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] a4ng3l 1 points 4 days ago

Sounds very US… I had to take some info on the topic here in europe and it appears that there’s a very much unalienable right for kids (and next of kin) to a fair distribution.

One can literally not change the part of the patrimony going to a child (without resorting to very complex arrangements that seemingly won’t be accepted by a judge should shit hits the fan).

Even though, for example, one learns he did not father a child -still cannot change the percentage. Tough luck for the other children, the wife…

Everyone has a right to be protected here. In the grand scheme of things it’s for the best.

And yeah, ethics is the basis for this simply you have to assume the position of the weakest one involved and not from the perspective of the one with the money ;-)

[–] a4ng3l 5 points 5 days ago

Like with all emerging technologies let’s wait for jurisprudence on those… though in europe we generally frown upon anything firearms I guess there will be some interesting evolutions with drones.

As platforms they open too many possibilities and a rather constraining framework is already preventing their operation unless you have a license… which could become more of an access barrier if abuses become more prevalent.

Anecdotally I have seen first hand in 2 occasions unlicensed operators getting caught and largely fined; which was in the end more expensive that having the little drone shot.

Anyway having references that broadly seem to offer protection to drone operators isn’t necessarily a good news even where gun maniacs aren’t plentiful.

[–] a4ng3l 3 points 1 week ago

You’re not fucking Gandalf, stop answering questions by more questions.

[–] a4ng3l 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good to know and very unfortunate that it’s labelled as such by op… sooooo in the end we don’t care about TFA?

[–] a4ng3l 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

This; « complies with most of the current human health guideline values set by various authorities in the EU, even with a high daily consumption of 2 litres » for someone not professionally involved means « is ok ». The authorities in the EU literally say « it complies ».

There are additional limits but from what I can read those re precautions not necessarily coming from health guidelines but from other sciences. Most likely very welcomed precautions though but it still says « complies today ».

Also you are avoiding my main concern which is « then what should I do? ».

We can play semantics the whole afternoon and in the end I agree with the idea that unwanted chemicals must be removed from my food & drinks; but then what? We stop drinking ?

[–] a4ng3l 3 points 1 week ago

Still, from the article; « Additionally, mineral water is less contaminated with TFA than tap water on average. »

Sooooo… maybe it is more regulated but tests seems to indicate that it’s still more contaminated -in general.

[–] a4ng3l 1 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Nope, nothing of the sort. I’m just wondering why the tone of the message from the guardian isn’t in line with the source it cites. They literally say « is ok » so what should be the take away?

Limits are too loose? If so what are good limits to look for? Is it a call to drop bottled water? But then what about city water which isn’t measured as far as I can read; is it better? (I doubt given late incidents in Belgium where water tables were contaminated by local industries).

So what can I do? I’m growing incredibly tired of drama for which nothing can be done at my level.

[–] a4ng3l 6 points 1 week ago (15 children)

I’m starting to doubt my reading capabilities. I went through the source and what I read was « Nevertheless, each of the mineral waters tested - even the one with the highest measured contamination of 3,200 ng/l - complies with most of the current human health guideline values set by various authorities in the EU ».

So it is contaminated but within acceptable limits. Traces beside a few brands that have larger traces still within those limits.

That on top with the fact that it seems to only be about bottled water which, at least in Belgium, is neither necessary nor that popular around me, makes me wonder what’s the call to action here.

[–] a4ng3l 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How sad is it when gaming companies first advertise to their shareholders before the gamers…

[–] a4ng3l 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But some currencies are backed by countries with armies and such deterrents. Not so many countries currently backing crypto I guess.

[–] a4ng3l 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Et pourtant je n’ai jamais eu autant l’impression de galèrer que maintenant…

view more: next ›