iceonfire1

Surprised to see wd not on this list

Even accounting for power plants, EVs still produce much less emissions. Here's a plot from energy.gov:

This is also covered on the common EV myths page: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#myth1

I want to echo what some others have said, even if it feels like you have little impact you are likely doing much more than you realize. A single stun or even a ping can turn an entire game!

As a support, your main goals are stuff like early laning and map vision when it matters (e.g. for fights or to prevent your cores being ganked). If you've done that well, you've basically won your part of the game so don't feel bad if you end up losing.

In Guardian teams generally don't know how to pressure at the right times. If you want more impact, you could think about whether your team wins late game or theirs does, and encourage your team to take fights or not accordingly.

Texas had a budget surplus too. They decided to give it to people who own real estate.

To be honest it's not my definition, just a good one I read somewhere.

I pretty much agree.

Thanks for the response.

I have no wish to hurt your feelings. Much the opposite, people should absolutely support each other. However, I think you may be projecting some negativity that you experienced onto these terms. The language isn't the problem, it's the context.

You say to use "harmful" instead of toxic, because "harmful" isn't descriptive. The words are synonyms, friend.

You say "gender expectations" is somehow better defined than "masculinity"? I'm sorry, but these refer to totally different things and "gender" is obviously less specific than "masculine". You literally just posted part of a definition for "toxic masculinity" yourself, showing that it is a well-defined term.

I think you are saying that you feel "toxic masculinity" confers a negative feeling about masculinity in general. I disagree. It refers to specific, harmful behaviors that are only associated with masculinity by mistake.

Unfortunately, there is a danger to dropping these terms as you suggest. The danger is that the related problems are not discussed.

Lastly, I will say that in your example well-researched racism still very much counts as racism. Please do not think that this kind of example encourages people to discuss with you. It does not.

This only makes sense on the presumption that women are unilaterally lacking in rights.

This is exactly my point. Historically the waves of feminism can be associated with different rights that women collectively did not have. The right to vote, equal pay, etc.

In terms of the purpose, context, and background of the movement "fem"inism is wholly justified.

I have no problem with these terms. Toxic masculinity is a descriptive term for a harmful set of behaviors. It's good to have descriptive terms. Someone who generalizes "toxic masculinity" to all male behavior is just wrong, and would be with or without the term.

Connecting the term "patriarchy" to the double standards you listed seems unnatural. Perhaps your circle uses double standards to describe male/female oppression; in such a case, I agree that that should change and I hope it does for you.

Feminism is about achieving gender equality by advancing women's rights. So yes, there is a good reason for the "fem" part of the word and it's probably not truly egalitarian.

Men suffer from discrimination and gendered role enforcement too, but while feminists may be sympathetic (they are fighting many of the same gendered problems) "feminism" is not a men's lib/men's rights movement. There are plenty of reasons for men to be feminists, though. Biased gender roles cause harm to both men and women.

How about an app that makes calls, but you have to dial like you would with an old rotary phone.

If you make a mistake with the rotations it just connects you to a random one of your contacts.

Seems cool to me, and not too strong. The dual wielder feat for ex. gives 2d8 instead of 2d6 for the same cost, and gives +1 AC. If you add your str/dex to the damage this feat would probably be better.

As it is, I like it. Makes daggers more flavorful and adds an incentive to use them instead of going for the more optimal (boring) option.

I think law enforcement can break into your home if they have a court warrant, right? So why not allow the same thing with electronic communications?

For me, the reason to disallow it is the potential for abuse. There were 864 search warrant applications across all federal agencies in 2022. In 2020, the FBI, specifically, issued 11504 warrants to Google, specifically, for geofencing data, specifically. Across all agencies there are probably millions of such "warrants" for data.

It's far easier to access your data than your house, so comparing physical and cybersecurity doesn't really make sense.

In general, criminals can easily just move to an uncompromised platform to do illegal stuff. But giving the govt easy access to messaging data allows for all kinds of dystopic suppression for regular people.

Probably he's still been saying that stuff but not enough ppl are left on Twitter to realize it