No it seriously means the feature isn’t available yet in the browser. Like there is a part of Firefox missing that they need to use the website. Basically all websites are coded in HTML, css, and js or a form of that. The browser controls them and the code operates out of it. If a feature is on chrome and chromium but not Firefox, the site won’t work on Firefox. Not sure exactly what is missing but it is mozillas fault not Microsoft.
But that could open a security exploit, for example letting other users take your IP and use it within the call to perform a ddos or other kind of attack on your system. They could have been trying to fix that.
MS purposefully not respecting the standards for its softwares to only work on their own browsers is a feature since they made Internet Explorer. It’s an industrial strategy to trap the users into their own tools. It’s to the point they don’t respect even their own standards in the case of docx for example so that there is no easy interoperability with libreoffice.
I agree with you that the real reason for it is EEE but their justification for it is that for enterprise and corporate customers, the only ones they care about, they can’t control Firefox in the same was as they can Edge or Chrome with the Microsoft Account add in which allows the MDM agents like InTune to apply DRM. Their primary concern (so they claim) is the enterprise administrators ability to control the computer, provide settings, configure defender xdr security and all the other bs products they sell.
That remark, while truthful a long time ago, didn’t really apply during the later periods of IE, or the early periods of Edge before it became a webkit clone. When it needed to win back users, there was a lot of focus on standardization, meaning that when I worked on sites, I tested them through MDN Docs, and in Firefox and IE first, made sure my solutions were not using any -webkit- nonsense, and then they would be fine on other browsers. Anytime I did find IE bugs late in its life, it was usually because some other browser coder was not correctly following standards.
Not what I mean. I mean Microsoft may know about an exploit with Firefox users joining calls like that and they blocked the user agent because that was the simplest way to keep most people safe.
Firefox implements everything the various web standards require. There are a few non standard features that Chromium implements that certain websites take advantage of, but the fact that their code isn’t portable is not Firefox’s fault. As for Teams… Microsoft’s just being a dick: if you change the user agent it works just fine.
And maybe Microsoft requires it. Also the could be more under the surface we don’t know about with the user agent, where it might have some kind of security exploit or something.
If there was a known security exploit, it would have been patched. Everything works, so nothing essential is missing. The way I see it, it’s yet another attempt to manipulate users into switching away from open standards.
Also, it’s a multi billion dollar company, can they really not afford to put a couple of devs to work on changing a few lines of code to fix whatever small incompatibility there may be?
You really don’t want to lose this argument do you? As a software engineer myself, I can assure you that that’s complete bullshit.
Teams is nothing special, it doesn’t intrinsically require any functionality only available in Chromium. It isn’t some weird magical piece of software that can’t be made work strictly using standard web protocols and features, something that, apparently, it already does because it does work if you trick it. It’s not even cutting edge, chat and video conferencing web apps have been around for ages at this point, many were implemented years back with only a fraction of what’s available today. They worked everywhere and still do. Microsoft is perfectly capable of making it work, because it can.
And If there was a known security exploit, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PATCHED. It doesn’t matter if it’s on Microsoft’s end or Firefox’s end.
The only reason they don’t make it work on Firefox by default is because they don’t want you to use it on Firefox, that’s it.
You seem to not want to lose either. I’m a software developer myself who specializes in websites. If Microsoft knows a severe exploit, they probably wouldn’t go around telling everybody exactly how to exploit it, would they? And we don’t know that it works perfectly, just that it works enough to use it.
They’d disclose it to Mozilla and the Firefox team if they knew. It would make no sense for them not to. Why are you so obstinate when it comes to this exploit theory, it’s the least likely reason you could pick for them not to support it.
How do we know they didn’t and are just waiting for mozilla to fix it? All of this is speculation, including the shit about it being Microsoft wanting you to use their browser. This isn’t that unlikely either.
Look, this is going nowhere, I give up. If you aren’t going to be reasonable, I’m not gonna waste my time discussing this. If you don’t want to listen, fine. Stick to your uninformed and unreasonable opinions and be happy.
Last time this came up, just spoofing the Firefox user agent to Chrome made it work perfectly. Maybe they block it because they haven’t tested it on Firefox yet, but it works as well as it does in Chrome.
And if they haven’t had the time to validate it in Firefox yet, that is a conscious choice by MS to not dedicate time specifically to validating in Firefox and treating it as a second-class web browser.
For anyone else who was out of the loop, this is a joke from the IT Crowd when (in the show) England was changing their emergency services numbers:
From today, dialing 999 won’t get you the emergency services. And that’s not the only thing that’s changing. Nicer ambulances, faster response times and better-looking drivers mean they’re not just the emergency services — they’re your emergency services. So, remember the new number: 0118 999 881 999 119 725… 3.
Edit: Edited for clarification that this was a joke in the show and England did not change their emergency services number IRL.
We never changed emergency numbers. It might have referred to when we changed directory enquiries from a single one operated by your phone provider to multiple options with the prefix 118 xxx. Or perhaps when we extended emergency services to also have non emergency numbers for police and health issues.
Otherwise it's been 999 for decades (with 112 also routed to the same).
I’m not British, so I don’t know the history of this. The article I took my info specifically said:
Until 2003, you could call directory enquiries (to find out the phone number of someone if you knew their name and address) by dialing 192. That system was privatized, and you had to dial 118 NNN, where the NNN was the number assigned to a commercial service provider, the most famous of which became 118 118.
So the joke in the show was basically, “what if we did to emergency services what we did to directory enquiries”.
Are you sure about that. They specifically called out England and not the UK. That is a sure fire way to tell that they know what they’re talking about.
Video games took over from pinball machines in arcades, which had been popular and making money for decades.
I am old enough to remember seeing the first space invaders machine arriving in a pinball parlour in 1979. It was a massive hit. By 1982, arcade video games were already making serious money.
That was such a weird take from moms of the era. I remember hearing it all the time as a kid, and I thought it was absolutely stupid. Now that I’m all grown up, I still think it’s absolutely stupid.
Yeah, these days it’s obvious that video games are the next logical step in media consumption. First we had audio. Then we had audio+video. Now we have audio+video+interaction. You can literally watch a movie inside of a video game, if you care to.
But back then, the audio and video qualities of games weren’t yet terribly developed. You could still easily find board games, or heck, sports, that were more complex than Pac-Man and Space Invaders.
I can definitely see that one would think, it’s a novelty and not be able to imagine how cineastic games would become, or that some even contain books worth of history lessons.
Except the greatest educational game of all time was already ten years old and dead from dysentery by the time she was speaking.
I think it’s more a case of her certainty coming from a lack of knowledge about the subject and the assumption that because she doesn’t know about it that it doesn’t exist.
I mean, yeah, I am also assuming that she was no expert on the matter. We’re saying that it was an understandable opinion for a lay person or even someone who kept up with the bigger titles. It certainly wasn’t easy back then to know about all kinds of games…
I loved my Colecovision. It blew that boring old, one button having Atari out of the water. We played it as a family. The games were fun. New games are lost on me completely. Every one of them is too complicated to be fun.
Because he is a complete loony extreme right-wing intolerant christian fanatic POS.
I used to like Andromeda, but now I can’t stand the sight of him as Dylan Hunt.
He is nothing but a Trump Christofascist troll on Twitter. Nobody will touch him (other than Left Behind/God’s Not Dead series). The only value he has is getting entertainingly owned by Lucy Lawless.
Regarding just Andromeda, I’m going to clip some text from wikipedia.
Controversy erupted in the midst of the second season, when series developer and executive producer Robert Hewitt Wolfe announced he had been released from the show’s production […] The reason for the change was purportedly to make the show more episodic and open to casual viewing.
And
In discussion on his website’s forums and various interviews, Wolfe has elaborated that he was released from the production staff after he refused to shift the show’s focus more heavily onto Kevin Sorbo’s character, Dylan Hunt, by essentially making all of the show’s episodes as Hunt-centric.
After that Sorbo become an executive producer on the show. The longer running plots set up by Wolfe were dropped and replaced by episodic low brow Hercules In Space stories. Looking at the quoted text above, it’s clear that’s exactly what the network wanted. Louder, dumber, and cheaper content to fill afternoon rerun time slots. Sorbo isn’t exactly an innocent actor caught up in show with a management dispute, since he was the one who ended up getting Wolfe’s job.
He got political, so if your against his politics you hate him because no one separates the art from the artist anymore. He was never really much more than a B list TV actor anyway so most people just don’t even care.
It’s completely ok to say “I really liked the thing, but I just can’t watch it because I can only see the actor behind the character”. If I found out someone punched puppies in their spare time, I would find it really hard to enjoy the things they are in. I don’t think it has to be any different with an actor who’s political stance you are vehemently against.
Honestly, the only reason I watched it despite knowing about Sorbo is that he’s just so damn goofy that I can’t take him seriously. It’s not like he actually can affect anything. Mostly he just makes shitty Christian movies. I don’t know, it somehow feels different from Kirk Cameron. Cameron feels like he’s preying on people. Sorbo just sounds like a doofus. He’s like the MyPillow guy of actors.
What the fuck is with this thread being overrun with dickheads? Is this the breaking point, has Lemmy reached critical mass?
The image represents how capitalism uses the myth of scarcity. There’s a bed there, and there’s a human being sleeping on the ground. The lie is that there isn’t enough to go around; that somebody has to go without.
You’ll shit your pants when you will learn that liberal is center right right-wing on anywhere else but the US.
There is no such thing as “center-right” - the only differentiator between one right-winger and the next is how comfortable they happen to be with the violence that maintains their precious status quo.
Liberals are just right-wingers that prefer the violence happening somewhere where they don’t have to witness it.
In what system would the homeless people sleep their nights in bed stores?
The scarcity isn’t primarily the beds. The scarcity is where to put the beds, which is perhaps artificially upheld by zoning laws and other governmental shenanigans.
Bed stores are a problem. They sit there taking up space for what? To look pretty for people to try out different brands of bed because we like to not figure out a universal solution to the problem of making a comfortable healthy platform of material that we can lay upon for long term rest. On top of that, instead of supplying our nation with affordable housing and furniture, it is laughably ignored.
All these empty locations for these corporations to advertise products and “experiences”
To look pretty for people to try out different brands of bed because we like to not figure out a universal solution to the problem of making a comfortable healthy platform of material that we can lay upon for long term rest.
We’ll do that as soon as we invent the universal spine.
We need something that can scientifically determine a way to get people an affordable and comfortable bed that is not just go into a giant waste of space filled with random mattresses in hopes you find the right one and will likely just pick one that is “just good enough” after a minute or two from laying on it, When its use case is meant for laying on it for about 8 hours
You might be confused because typically that figure refers to ‘homes’, not ‘houses’. Apartments and other multi-family housing types are included in that figure.
Alright but still. There must be at least a million homeless Americans if not more. That would mean 27 million housing units sitting on the market now ready to go and not be sold or rented out? That dwarfs almost any city in the US, I can’t even picture it. My building has three units for rent all occupied so you would have my building in a line of 9 million other ones I guess it takes about 1 seconds to walk across the front of my building, a line of 9 million would take 2,500 hours just to walk past, or a bit under a third of a year if you walked non-stop 24/7.
Might also help to know that this number likely also includes AirBNB’s and timeshare rentals. 27 million, spread over 3 million square miles (size of the US) and often in high-density buildings, including units that may appear to be occupied but are transiently used for only a third of the year.
Vacant homes are any home that’s not someone’s primary residence when they calculate vacancies.
That includes vacation homes, temporary housing for traveling workers or college students, houses that are sold or rented but haven’t been moved into yet, housing held up in divorce or estate proceedings, etc.
According to the census, last year there were 15 million vacant homes. Yes, that’s a lot, and yes, many can’t reasonably have a homeless person live there.
That’s technically true, but really not important. Houses are defined as vacant if they’re unoccupied on the day of a census. There’s many reasons a house might be technically vacant, but not currently be able to house a homeless person.
Was the house just sold, and is it unoccupied for a week or a month between owners? It’s vacant. Did the owner just move into hospice or a memory care unit and their children haven’t yet sold the house because they need to arrange an estate sale? It’s vacant. Is the house under construction but is mostly built? It’s vacant. Is it not safe to live in, but not officially condemned? It’s vacant.
Want to move to a city? Either you have to find the apartment of someone moving out, or you have to move into a vacant unit.
Having a good number of vacant homes is a good thing, actually; having low numbers of vacancies in an area leads to housing becoming more expensive because you can’t move into a unit that isn’t vacant. Increasing housing supply relative to population leads to higher vacancy rates, but decreases housing costs.
Housing-first approaches to homelessness seem to be good in practice. But those are typically done by either government-built housing or government- subsidized housing; it’s mostly orthogonal to vacancy rates.
Obviously not. The existence of homelessness isn’t due to scarcity at all, it’s to do with a system that tolerates (even necessitates) homelessness. The image could have just as easily been someone sleeping outside an apartment with a sign advertising available units; they sleep, freeze, and starve, because our economic model rejects their basic needs in favor of commodifying them.
It’s not that hard a concept to grasp, it just seems like people have ingrained the logic of the market in their brains and can’t conceptualize the issue of poverty beyond ‘stuff costs money’.
The annoying thing is that there will very likely be a homeless shelter in this city that he’s not allowed to sleep in because they have a zero tolerance drug policy.
It’s annoying because people who do drugs still need homes. Also not every drug user is aggressive or disruptive or whatever other reason the shelter would have for not allowing drug users.
You might be right, but if the requirement for shelter is to not use drugs, why is it the shelter’s responsibility to alter their requirements rather than the person who’s seeking shelter’s responsibility to abide by the requirements? They aren’t owed anything, they’re being offered shelter at someone else’s cost. If I’m hungry and a restaurant offers to give me free food, I can’t then get angry that they have a “no shirt no service policy” and require me to wear a shirt to receive my free food.
If someone creates something to trade it for goods and services, thats fine, even if that means its free at the point of consumption.
If someone creates something for their own reasons, you have no entitlement to it. Please try to be less emotional with your responses, this is a discussion platform meme page after all.
Your initial point is that no one deserves what someone else did. My counter point is that since the dawn of humanity, every human has used someone’s else idea or tool to make their life better.
So yeah, you owe it to everyone around you for the lifestyle you have right now.
People create things all the time for their own reasons that have nothing to do with profit. Some people create things for fun. For some, it’s called having a hobby.
Actually, in a socialist utopia, yes you would. And everyone else would be entitled to the thing you made too. And every pricetag would be based on the labor spent in making the item rather than inflated to satisfy the profits of some corporation that doesn’t add value to the product being sold.
That sounds like a communist utopia you’re thinking of, not socialist.
And ignores that it’s not that “everything is free”, it’s that everything is owned by everyone, the same way everyone “pays” for the police - but they don’t work for you, they work for everyone / the state.
I have. Also sheltered illegals before. Which at one point involved me having to stare down and bluff a process server. Not a moment I would like to revisit but proud of myself for doing.
Just because someone may or may not want homeless people sleeping in their house, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t support social safety nets to make sure people aren’t freezing to death sleeping in indignity on the streets.
It’s easy to advocate for things that you bear no responsibility for. It’s no different than politicians war mongering and advocating for wars that they will send other people’s children to fight and die in.
I don’t want anyone to die on the streets, but I also recognize that at a certain point giving help is enabling, and individuals are responsible for their own well-being and decisions. The help should absolutely be offered, but society should not be required to suffer those who refuse to take it/change their lifestyle.
I think people’s issue with it is it’s just not very well thought out.
The bed store would never under any circumstance provide the bed for homeless people to access what world would that ever happen in? The problem is the homeless person doesn’t have access to shelter but that’s not the fault of the bed store that’s the fault of the state.
The image seems to suggest that the bed store are holding all the beds for some kind of weird show of economic supremacy rather than you know the fact that it’s a display room. No one’s buying those beds they’re display models.
No one is arguing that homeless people shouldn’t be held but that particular image isn’t really anything.
Why don’t we just convert all the bed stores into homeless shelters?
That way you can try out a bed, get some feedback from actual users (the homeless sleeping on the bed), all the store profits can go to pay for housing the homeless, AND government won’t have to provide public housing!
Has been for a while. During the big exodus from reddit we brought with us lots of typical redditors that think being a contrarian dickhead makes them cool.
As well as lots of the usually sad little losers from across the internet that see people enjoying themselves and get the irresistible urge to make things worse.
“irresistible urge”, sure, but I wouldn’t give them credit for making things worse. Sure, they snicker at sticking their old gum under the desk, but it’s a whole set of other issues that’re burning down the building in the meantime.
Well, bed is not necessary since you can sleep anywhere as long as you can lie down. To make bed - trees were cut, the ecosystem were damaged. The birds who had their nest in those trees lost their home. Is this worth it?? /s
There’s a ghastly number of people who are aggressively ignorant assholes.
The point is that we don’t have people sleeping on the street for a lack of… anything, really. Including beds. The point is that, when nearly everything is run for-profit, and it’s even slightly more profitable to let people suffer and even die, then people will suffer and die. We do a better job selling beds than we do making sure everyone has a bed to sleep in. We could make sure everyone has access to a warm bed, shelter, food, medicine, etc., but we don’t, and it’s less and less acceptable to just accept the status quo just because it’s the status quo. If someone thinks the status quo is defensible, it’s on them to defend it.
That doesn’t mean the mattress seller is evil, or (and I can’t understand the logic in one of the other comments) that wanting people to be housed makes you a hypocrite if you have your own housing. And the absolutely shameless comments that openly admit they won’t (really can’t) explain their position, but are going to condescend anyway.
But there being a salespoint for bed does not take home from the homeless. The issue is them being without shelter.
This is Symbolik, but not the issue at hand. Also turning commercial buildings into flats does not seem like a good/efficient solution to a complex issue like homelessness. (Disregarding living out of a car homelessness)
There’s a bed there, and there’s a human being sleeping on the ground.
It really isn’t more complicated than that. Any explaination why this person is not allowed to sleep in this bed or why this person should not be able to sleep in this bed is absolute bullshit.
There’s a bed there, and there’s a human being sleeping on the ground.
It’s a critique on capitalism, where we have the technology and products to improve our quality of life but restrict access to them for a considerable percentage of humas. You’re welcome.
Even in a utopian communist society there would be showrooms for products, to help people select what best meets their sleep/medical needs. Those beds would be unused too.
It is a separate issue, that the showroom is not responsible for, that resulted in a homeless person not having a bed.
Systemic issues have systemic solutions. If you try to apply a local solution to a systemic problem, you just kicked the can. (As in, letting homeless people use the showroom beds).
But there is the assumption that bed showrooms need to be filled with inventory so that people can decide what bed they want to buy while others don’t even have a bed.
I’m not communist because I think skill and effort should be rewarded. But I guess you could say I’m basic need communist in that I think society should do their best to ensure everyone has their basic needs met and rewards those supplying those basic needs beyond their own basic needs.
Luxury options and upgrades should be waiting until after everyone has the base version. And that base version should be efficiently and effectively designed, not designed deliberately to make the user want to upgrade.
The idea is that a socialist/communist utopia wouldn’t concern itself with the pursuit and hoarding of capital. So the “showroom” wouldn’t really be a concept. We’d have catalogues and stores, but the fancy aspirational dressing that comes with the wastes of space known as furniture stores would be less prevalent.
There’s always going to be people who fall through the cracks in your safety net because they for some (usually mental health related) reason just can’t integrate into the framework of society. You can offer help, but even without conditions attached there’s going to be people who will refuse it.
I don’t think the issue in America is that we’ve tried the best we can but some have slipped through the cracks. More along the lines of we’ve tried nothing and we are all out of ideas.
The systemic solution is not a utopian communist society, but a system which provides beds for those who need it. The picture highlights this problem.This is not a critique on the showroom, or the store owner (which is how you interpreted it), this is a critique on society. You were the one who muddied the waters (and assumed that someone is proposing a communist society, another argument fallacy). The point is not “letting homeless people use the showroom beds” but rather “letting homeless people use beds”.
I didn’t muddy anything. I handled multiple points. The second point in my comment is the one you are discussing.
Further, it is not “another argument” fallacy when “capitalism” is written on the photo. The prominent differing economic model is communism or like systems, where needs are systemically met before profits are considered. So it is implied one can discuss other economic models by the presence of “capitalism” in the source material.
The part where you did actually muddy the waters is that you assumed that the picture depicts problems in a “showroom - homeless person” context, which is clearly not the case (as you contradictingly say yourself and even recognize when you said: “when “capitalism” is written on the photo”). The picture clearly criticizes capitalism as a economic system, but you wanted to make the showroom the focus point of the photo. That is muddying the waters. You dismiss the original critique. Or at least that’s how I read your comment. The difference between “I was talking about multiple points” and “muddying the waters” is not that big.
On the other part, yeah, fair enough. I would compare it to a “utopian socialist society” rather than communistic, but sure whatever. I mean there are countries in the world where taking this picture is very easy, and some (socialist) countries where it’s take a bit of effort to find a situation like this to photograph in the first place (most nordic european countries, for example).
The whole point of the image we are both commenting is a critique on capitalism. You are moving the point slightly towards “critique on showroom owners”.
However let’s not get sidetracked here. In a utopian society there would be showrooms, yes. But the person would not be forced to sleep outside without a bed in such a society, be there showrooms or not. That is the point. Capitalism allows this, a socialist society doesn’t (just look at the countries with least homeless people and you’ll see)
I am fixating on the thing that relates to this picture. It seems to me (honestly, I don’t mean to come off as an ass) that your 2nd point of discussion is very much my “muddying the water” point. I don’t want to discuss that point, as that was totally irrelevant here. If I understood correctly, your 2 points were: (I’m paraphrasing, but) “I don’t understand, why showroom owners should let homeless people sleep inside their premises” and “every other economic system besides capitalism also has these qualities”
Right? And I think I have provided arguments against both of these. What am I missing?
Considering we have multiple people suggesting that the homeless person should, in fact, be allowed to sleep in that bed, I think that a lot of people are interpreting it that way.
You’d be surprised by how far just caring can go. And by that, I mean genuinely, empathically, caring.
Depends a lot on who is doing the caring. For instance, if a homeless person has infinite empathy towards another one, not a lot will happen. If a particurarily unskilled politician has a lot of empathy, what they do with it might be a net negative.
So I kinda disagree with the sentiment here. Empathy alone does about as much as thoughts and prayers. Empathy isn’t even required in order to help a lot of people. You can be the driest, most temperature-room person on the planet and do good things.
You would still need to the wherewithal to identify that help is needed. Be it empathy from within or external, if no one cared it would never reach even the lukiest of warm persons desk.
Ya know what was a foundational part of the American dream? Pensions. Ya know which employers still offer them? Counties, states and the federal government.
Private companies exist solely to make the people at the top very rich based on the stolen value of employee labor while dumping catastrophic losses in the public sphere. That's capitalism in a nutshell.
You'd have to be unbelievably gullible, naive, traumatized AND brainwashed to be a diehard for a system like that. But, somehow they've managed it. A deluded nation of Amway top performers just one move away from making their own imaginary millions. All simping for the system.
Yesterday an American accidentally admitted that they tip their landlord. It was at that point I said to myself “man you fuckers deserve to suffer under whatever republican you end up voting for next election because we all know that’s what you dumb ass motherfuckers are going to do”
Telecommunications Act. 1996. The Great Brainwashing where the Party began telling you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears.
The best part? …if you endorse force and shick therespy to fix this fucking shit even the “leftists” will call you a violent fascist. Everyone got brainwashed.
That’s just useless semantics, neither funny nor clever. The pig you bought may be dead, but the money you pay will be used to raise and kill other pigs.
the pig was slaughtered in the past, before I walked into the store or decided what I’m eating this week. everyone involved was paid before all that, too.
Yeah, by everyone that buys meat. It’s simple. If we all stop buying it now they’re gonna run out and stop producing meat. The meat you buy today pays the meat that enters the store later.
They wouldn’t kill, or even raise the pig if they didn’t count on the money down the chain. We indirectly but surely pay for pigs to be created / killed, for our consumption.
It’s fine if you don’t care about that or accept it as your standards, that’s your choice and fair in our current social context. Just realize the economics behind it.
Yes, but they only pay those people if they expect to make a profit by selling the end product to you. You are one of the people who make it worthwhile to set up a chain of payments like that.
If they do not expect you (or other people) to buy the meat, they won’t pay those people to raise / kill the pigs.
Whether it’s you this time or someone else doesn’t matter. As long as there is a demand by end consumers they will continue. If no-one buys it they stop, it’s that simple.
You’re part of the group that enables this dynamic and your money goes to paying those people. It’s fine if you like meat, just don’t deny this basic logic.
No you’re not, but to dismiss that your actions still have influence on other people/systems is short-sighted.
Once more, it’s fine if you eat meat. You don’t have to consciously manage other people’s expectations. But just know that you automatically do. Buying meat is supporting the future production of meat, that’s all.
I believe if I didn’t buy meat, it would continue to be made, and in ever-increasing quantities. my purchases have no impact whatsoever on whether any animal is bred, raised, or slaughtered.
It’s actually irrelevant whether or not you buy a product made from slave labour, the product is already made! How much product is made is completely independent of how much gets purchased, because that’s how markets work!
Unlike you, I am familiar with the pig government and we actually have an agreement that we eat their death row inmates. Crime has never been so delicious.
Are you telling me that you eatpork as some sort of... preemptive revenge? Because even in a hypothetical universe where pigs are top of the food chain, it would still be wrong to imprison and kill them. Which is why doing this to tiger/lion/bear would also be wrong in our universe.
To people saying it’s justified because Hamas are hiding there, if Hamas wants to kill as many Israelis as possible they could hide in a Israeli hospital and the IDF, being consistent, would bomb it just the same since it now became a military target. Right?
Yeah, you know they wouldn’t, not the same way at least. Somehow Palestinians are an acceptable collateral while Israeli, specially Jews, would never be. That’s how you know this isn’t about Hamas.
Who would think that in a war, the people opposing you would be treated differently than your own people? This is the reality of war and not specific to this conflict.
The question is do Jewish people expect mercy from the one above? Or do they think the lord is someone they’ll explain themselves to and is supposed to be their friend and just be like yeah sweet? Like imagine how disappointed that a higher power or super intelligence would be 🤣
Except Hamas is the government in Gaza and can setup pretty much whatever situation it wants to there, while it is hated in Israel outside of Gaza and would be prevented from taking an Israeli hospital and constructing elaborate tunnels under it. That’s kind of like saying “If Russia wants Ukraine so bad, why doesn’t it just take Kyiv?” Because it can’t. There’s a bunch of obstacles stopping it, otherwise it obviously would.
You think Israel would just let them take one of their hospital in the first place ? Why would that happen in the first place ? There would be an immediate military intervention , before they are deeply embedded
In Palestine tho, hamas does what it wants. And nobody is there to stop them. So they already are in the hospitals, and in the streets leading to hospital, and watching the neighborhood where those are.
Can’t tell if you’re just trying to sound ironically dumb or not?
Israel would storm it’s own hospital with troops as would any other country. Bombs were used in Gaza before there was security on the ground. Dropping special forces off in the middle of Hamas held territory would turn into Black Hawk Down 2
I don’t think your comparison holds up as the double standard you think it is. Isreal have been bombing locations that potentially hold their own civilians being held as hostages.
Breasts are white meat. Wings and thighs are dark meat. White meat gets “drier” than dark meat if not cooked properly. Dark meat is a little more savoury.
Dark meat is basically meat that’s closer to the bone. Compare to white meat, which is basically just the breast.
I prefer the dark meat, it seems to be more flavourful. I know a lot of people want nothing to do with blood and bones, and they prefer white meat because of that
White meat is “fast twitch” muscle and is used for short powerful bursts of activity, like the breast muscles, which are used for flapping the wings
Dark meat is “slow twitch” muscle and is used for longer duration activities like walking, hence the legs and thighs are dark meat.
Dark meat contains more fat and can be cooked longer without becoming dry. White meat becomes dry and tough very quickly if overcooked.
This only really applies to birds, mammals are made of red meat, which is like a combination of both fast and slow twitch and can do both sort and long duration activities
I used to work at a KFC and I think one of my favourite memories was during a very busy Friday night dinner rush I was up front service and older couple, maybe around 60ish. Someone in the drive through had apparently ordered 5 pieces of chicken breast, and one of the girls in drive through yelled very loudly WE NEED MORE TITS
The old people were not happy, but everyone else found it rather funny
It’s so that they can deceitfully advertise prices which are lower than the real price.
I believe this is totally illegal in the EU (because they’re obligated to list prices and all charges, fully, upfront and that even includes taxes) but I guess that in the US there are States were it’s either not illegal or has never been challenge in court.
I had a service charge like that added in Rome once. It is most likely illegal, but Rome is a pretty lawless place as it is where everybody tries to scam you all the time, so I didn’t bother spending time arguing it and getting all worked up about a couple of euros during my holiday, just avoided the place thereafter. I know that’s probably what they’re counting on …
Oh yes, the “coperto” or cover charge. Restaurants that are worth going to will tell you upfront about whether they charge you that and how much. Tourist traps will just put a small sign somewhere on the premises that informs you of their ass-pull fee.
I went to a small café in Venice and had a cup of coffee for 4€. They charged me a fixed 14€ coperto.
Coperto is perfectly legal and the norm everywhere. It would be clearly mentioned on the menu, typically at the bottom of every page and it is around a couple bucks per person. It’s for the bread and bread sticks you get on the table, water and electricity to wash cutlery and plates you use, and to pay for serving stuff and rent. Why not included in the price of that pizza you might ask? Because I might order that pizza to take away and not use all of the above.
Some touristy places take advantage of it, doesn’t make sense for a coffee in Venice (though I’m not surprised). A couple of bucks that op was charged at a restaurant in Rome on the other hand, 100% expected everywhere in Italy.
I just read about coperto here, and I don’t think that was it. I’m pretty sure it said “Servizio” on the bill, and it was a percentage on top of the price of what we ordered.
Oh yeah, I live in Portugal and here too foreign tourists are natural targets for scammy shit. It’s not too much but there are certainly bad actors who will take advantage of people who don’t speak the local language and don’t know their rights.
However I suspect it’s a lot worse when some kinds of scams are actually legal.
That would be illegal in the EU country where I live (Belgium). Here the rule is that the advertised price must always include any mandatory charges, like VAT and service charges, so that advertised price = price the consumer would have to pay.
Companies offering goods or services must indicate the price in writing in a legible, visible and unambiguous manner.
The price is the total price to be paid by the consumer, including VAT and all other taxes or services that the consumer is obliged to pay extra. These prices are stated at least in euros.
Look at how the tips were calculated. They were based on a bill of $95.65, the price of the meal before the service fee.
This service fee allowed them to increase the price of the meal by 18% without increasing the calculated tip by 18%.
They are stiffing their employees.
Edit: A $100 check would have an expected, 15% tip of $15. A $118 check would have an expected 15% tip of $17.70. What they are doing lets them calculate a 15%, $15 tip on a $118 bill. They are “stealing” $2.70 worth of tips on every $100 worth of sales.
No I don’t even really have that excuse because we do have the word “espèce” which would be the direct translation of species, but I think in every day language people would use them a bit interchangeably. For example also breeds of dogs we call races.
lemmy.world
Top