frazw

joined 2 years ago
[–] frazw 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Or is he just casting a wide net....

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

How would buying a country even work. You give them a bunch of money and say "You belong to us now" and then the money you gave is also now yours... Unless you expect them to leave after the sale or something.

[–] frazw 35 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This will be unpopular but I have found Marijuana users to be extremely biased against any negatives raised about the drug and conversely very biased towards accepting anything positive. Because of this and the fact that psychosis is rare, i.e. not the typical experience, the answer you are mostly likely to get here is that Marijuana doesn't cause it. You can only trust their personal "had it or didn't have it" but not what they say about never seeing it in others.

Imagine that it causes psychosis in 1 in 1000 users (I don't know the real ratio this is just for example). That would mean, based on personal experience alone, you would get 999 answers saying it's totally fine, and 1 saying it causes psychosis. You walk away thinking it's safe when maybe for you, it's not. Even if it was 1 in 10 you'd probably still think the consensus is that it's safe the 1 saying its not is going against the consensus so must have an agenda. Not what if the rate in the general population is 1 in 1,000,000 but the rate for people with a family history of mental illness is 1 in 3? Both can be true but which is the one that matters to you? Here you'd only be finding the 1 in a million number when you really want to know the one in 3 number.

Things like this are not about opinions they are about statistics. As someone else said, don't ask social media for medical matters, science is not about consensus it's about evidence. The laws of physics don't change based on how many people believe something.

Many comments here are the equivalent of saying "I've never seen a car crash so they must be made up, it's just fear mongering by the auto industry to put useless air bags and seat belts in the car to charge you more".

[–] frazw 10 points 2 weeks ago

You must hate Nike

[–] frazw 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Honestly why does he care if it comes out? He was elected despite his actions which means his voters simply do not care that he tried to do this. It is more important to them that their guy wins than any criminality surrounding it. This will be taught in schools for years to come.

Those who didn't vote for him and most of the rest of the world already think it was despicable.

"Donald Trump didn't incite a mob to try to forcibly stay in power...

... and if he did it wasn't his fault because they misinterpreted his words...

...and if they didn't, he didn't really mean it...

... and if he did it was only because the election was stolen from him so he was justified...

... and if it wasn't Trump was a good president and deserved to stay in power as he did a lot of good when in office...

... and Iif he wasn't then at least he was a better candidate than Joe Biden...

...and if he wasn't he's a good business man and will be good for the economy and my tax bill...

...and if he isn't at least he tells me what I want to hear"

[–] frazw 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So for the light on the left, am I supposed to select the left most boxes in the first and second row? Or do I select one box that contains most of the light. Asking for a friend.

[–] frazw 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Whether Trump likes it or not, EVs are happening and it's because of every other government. So he's trying now to stop the snow ball which is now half way down the hill and 10 times the size. BMW, VW, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, etc etc aren't going to stop the transition. All that will happen is the US will be left behind. The rest of the world will be weaning off oil and the US will be left with no option eventually, but will not be a major player in the tech because of these anti EV policies. Or are they simply viewed as anti tesla as tesla is already established???

[–] frazw 25 points 1 month ago (12 children)

How can Americans simultaneously hate health insurance CEOs while simultaneously shouting down event attempt to improve healthcare at the ballot?

[–] frazw 21 points 1 month ago

You answered your own question... "I chose earbuds from NOTHIHG because according to reviews they are really good for the money."

The price for them is not just the money...

[–] frazw 3 points 1 month ago
[–] frazw 10 points 2 months ago

Bluesky is more twitter like than mastodon. Mastodon is more free

[–] frazw 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's called bluesky now ;)

690
submitted 2 months ago by frazw to c/politicalmemes
 

Democratic political strategy

 

Every decade has its musical style that generally makes it easy to place what decade a song was written in if you haven't heard it before.

40s big band

50s rock and roll

60s essentially has its genre named after the decade or at least I can't think of anything I'd call a genre.

70s punk and beginnings of heavy metal, disco

80s electro synth, rap

90s grunge, dance, R&B, trance

Etc etc. Obviously these don't entirely define the music of the decade but are highly recognisable genres that can more often than not pinned down to a decade.

So my question is, since the 2000s I don't see as much differentiation but that might be because I'm too old (44) and not as exposed to be music as I was in my teens, so help me pretend I'm "hip" and "with it" by giving me some clues. I'm curious to know what you think defines the music of the 2020s, what defines the 2010s and what defines the 2000s. I.e. When someone says they are going to listen to noughties music what do they put on? Etc. Or have we reached a point where music has been explored to the point new genres are much rarer to establish?

 

The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.

So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"

Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.

EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions

view more: next ›