This version from the gospel of John is far more interesting than the others, what with all the whipping.
And not just any whip: Jesus made it from a leather thong from his own sandal, switches (small, thin branches) from a nearby tree, and broken pieces of pottery on the ground! That’s a very nasty whip!
I wonder is it something specific to the USA or in other countries people are obseessing over nit having them in the lawn?
I’m in France and every though WE are far from having wild urban meadow or meadow at all, I’ve never heard of people and HOA complaining about dandelion before learning nolawn mouvement on the internet.
Definitely a thing in the US. People spend lots of money to have chemicals poured onto their lawns every year, summer and winter, to keep the weeds away. All of those chemicals have to go somewhere. Probably the groundwater and streams and other bodies of water. Not good.
I know people who mowed down carefully their lawn and spray them with presticide but they never had a issue with having dandelions, daisies and other common grass flowers, they are usually considered part of the lawn.
It’s a weird culture a lot of emphasis on freedom and protecting your home but then you just “ok then” when the local busy body comes around. It’s your land get them told
I love your line of thinking. Lawns don’t feed the ecosystem, flowers do! But here in the US dandelions and clover are not a critical part of their diet. Native plants are the critical part of their diet - e.g. Native maple trees that bloom first!
They are far from the worst weeds, i wouldn’t go eradicating them like you should invasive plants (I leave both in my lawn anyways). But if we are looking to support our bees and ecosystem, then we should be re wilding our yard and growing native plants
Is probably true. However, one should question their world view if they measure everything as a minimization problem with respect to cost efficience and yield.
I get what you mean. Our system produces a ridiculous amount of quantity, which should be great! But in the context of where it’s firmly placed within existing socioeconomics, stupid things happen like “destroying all the product to keep the value from crashing” and the “distribution problem” that feeding the poor isn’t profitable.
Maybe industrial agriculture wouldn’t be so terrible if food production for the human race didn’t operate on the same metrics as handbags or funkopops. =\
I agree that commodifying food, especially locking nutrition behind class walls is barbaric. I also get that the current iteration of industrial farming is scary (don’t get me wrong, it sucks shit) and that “small scale farming solutions just haven’t been tried!” but clearly small scale farming is a long term fantasy that would take many decades of work and public acceptance, not even to mention the process of decommodifying the agriculture industry. All I’m saying is that if I’m playing in the same space, the method that would be the most environmentally friendly and efficient (not in an economic sense) is large scale industrial farms.
The other concern I have about small-scale farming I had, arose because I had this notion about “What if we could eliminate food deserts that are literally in the desert through household hydroponics?”
It sounded like such an awesome idea. Federated food! What a revolution!
But I also found out there’s a ton that can go very wrong when you have no idea where food came from or how it is grown.
It’s also my experienced opinion that a not-small percentage of the human population in this metropolis range from clinically insane to dangerously ignorant.
Industrial farming sucks in a lot of ways, but I’m also glad the (horribly underfunded) FDA and USDA exists.
Perhaps pushes for education in this field could go a long way? It seems outside of farming communities, food production is very much thought of as “farmers’ work.” and not much else.
which is what happened with frostpunk for me. i made it through the main story once, and bought it and the DLCs at full price. 5 years after it came out.
I test the games because most of the time it’s buggy shit, or AAA games. Few gems here and there and I will pay for them when I know they are good. The 2 hour refund which isn’t enough imo…games are designed to be trash after the 2 hours tbh…or at least don’t show the trash until after the 2 hour mark.
There has been a few times where I even had to refund after purchasing because the ‘totally legit edition’ actually worked, whereas the DRM filled trash didn’t.
I did that once, I was staying at a family as an exchange student and immediately forced to help with chores. Now, they ran a large creche from that house so there were a lot of different chores and being on dishes could mean slaving away in the kitchen for well over an hour.
Anyway, I didn’t know shit about how to properly dispose of oil and in the first or second week poured a large pan of oil down the drain. It ended up ruining some stuff and they had a hefty repair bill. I may be cynical, but I never gave a damn about it as they were basically using me as free labor anyway. Helping with household chores = ok. Helping clean up the gigantic daily mess of those shitty kids in your shitty creche = not ok
Honest question: Are there no limits in the US to what you can legally name your child? Where I’m from a name can be rejected if it can “cause significant harm or inconvenience to the child”. This prevents idiots from naming their child “Traitor” or “Terrorist”.
There are limits in many places, sometimes in response to that time the artist Prince changed his name to a symbol, in some cases all special characters are banned too, so good luck to anyone with a non-English name. But outside of that? In most states you could probably name your kid Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, much worse names have happened.
I think there’s been a couple of times where states have tried to stop individuals who have tried to name their kid Adolph Hitler or just some racist slogan, but I don’t remember how those went, it was a genuine legal question if those names could be blocked.
Name changes, however, are a different thing - often requiring a judge to approve them, they can be rejected simply due to the misfortune of being a trans person in Texas, for example. Unless it’s a name change due to marriage, those are significantly easier for some reason.
To make that $3000 at her normal rate she would have had to work 30 hours in that same week, which I bet is a tall order for all the unpaid hours that takes attracting customers individually.
I would say make laws about data collection, usage, etc. instead of banning TikTok.
Heck, fix more important problems like income disparity, hunger, homelessness, healthcare, our wasteful spending, so many things more important and yet we’re wasting time on TikTok.
I don’t think people think this is a good use of time.
Seriously, it’s government overreach and ignoring freedom of speech, etc.
We can agree that there is at least a slight difference in having your own (or a friendly nation’s) Government tracking you, versus allowing a competing nation to have direct access to over half of the adult US population (as per their recent push-notification stunt), as well as a robust collection of their interests and preferences.
There is a reason China has banned most US-based software in the mainland (Meta, Google, etc.); in favour of self-developed alternatives. This is just treatment in kind; it’s not an outright ban, rather a forced sale to prevent more of that user data falling into dubious hands.
I’m not really ok with that type of anti other country behavior in (edit to add the word: almost) any case. Heck, I want cheap Chinese EV options in the US too.
Make government (and other) tracking opt-out-able by law. That is the law we need. Not this bs version.
This current bill literally sounds like it’s written by American companies to squash a foreign competition. You know Facebook, YouTube, etc. are biting at the teeth for more users (and ad revenue) of short form content; especially if TikTok users scattered to other platforms.
Once again: give users the freedom to chose what they want. This is a government overreach.
Yes, there is a difference. Having your own government spy on you is way worse because it has the monopoly on violence over you. No one protects you from that. But your government will (try to) protect you from foreign influences.
There is a reason for the outrage when PRISM came out of the closet.
But your government will (try to) protect you from foreign influences That’s what this is, though.
Take a step back and consider for a moment the absolute mayhem TikTok was able to cause through one single push notification to their US user base (>170m, over half the adult population). That is not a power that should be wielded lightly, and definitely not one in the hands of a foreign adversary ready, willing and capable of weaponising it at their whim.
Think of the power that affords them to put their finger on the scale when it comes to the critical upcoming Presidential election, not just directly - but through slight manipulations of the algorithm to engage one political cohort and disenfranchise another.
My point was that there is some institution on your site of that standoff. This will not be the case if you have to fight against your own government. So it’s better to have to fight a foreign government, rather than one’s own.
TikTok is a dangerous influence, yes. I wasn’t trying to argue against that. But then, so are Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Twitter and similar social media. Maybe even all social media.
Other than fighting with shortsighted regulations I don’t know how one would fight such an influence other than widespread education of the people. But that would make them more resilient against any propaganda.
Yes, my point is in this scenario there is a heavy hitter (government) on your site, which makes it a better sutuation than to let your government just prey on you.
Although I would put this under the “try to” category. In my opinion it’s way better to regulate methods rather than names. Then again I would not know how to implement this thought in this scenario.
Probably a bad translation from German. Maybe a better translation would be “force” instead of “violence”. It means only the police is allowed to use force.
Still can’t understand the point of it. Like, is the state ordering that civilians must be defenseless in the face of crime, for example? But yeah in general it just sounds like the usual “I am the Senate” fascist kind of takeover and control of power.
It means pretty much that, I would say. The reasoning is that in the case of a conflict you have to solve it by involving police and advocacies ( I think this is the right word ). The senate is only involved in setting the ground rules for the conflict in front of a judge.
Of course, there is stuff like self defense (so one is not completely defenseless), but anything like revenge is heavily pursued.
lemmy.today
Top