In Australia it is $12.80 AUD for a large Big Mac meal which is $8.36 USD. For $18.5 USD I can get a much better burger and still a meal deal at either Five Guys or Grilld.
They kind of used to be. The big old play areas are mostly gone. One in my area even had an N64 in one of those bubble kiosks. Gone. I can’t imagine why kids these days still give a shit about Micky D.
It baffles my mind that people would pay $18 USD for that shit. I visited the US last year and while prices in general had definitely gone up since the last time I was there, there is absolutely no justification to pay $18 for McDonald's. It's crazy.
It is insane that a meal at Red Robin with bottomless fries is actually less expensive than McDonald’s… I literally don’t go to these types of restaurants unless there is some app deal because fastfood retail prices have gone insane.
Someone was able to bypass the paywall and said it’s some McDonalds at a rest stop in Connecticut, which is just an outlier like any gas station charging $1.50/gal more because they’re right off a busy freeway exit.
I live in Texas and had a sweet potato hash with pulled pork, kale, and a poached egg for lunch yesterday for $15. If $18 for a McDonald’s meal is true, people would be crazy to go there, there are a ton of more affordable and way better options.
Can’t read the article without effort, but I very much doubt numbers and the context is missing. Every one I’ve been to here on the East Coast USA has been about $12.
Not really a big Mac will feed ya for a half day and it’s a great quick snack meal if you are on the run. I make it a point to hit them up every once in a while for breakfast too. People hate on McDonald’s way too much.
The only way they pay cap gains is if this is a second house
Not the only way. There are several different ways you might have to pay cap gains on a home that isn’t a second home.
But for the article its likely this way they have to pay:
“Both the IRS and FTB provide a capital gains tax break for home sellers who meet certain conditions. The maximum amount of capital gain that can be excluded is $250,000 for single filers or $500,000 for a married couple filing jointly.” source
From OPs article:
“The taxable gain of $1.4 million at 20% would mean those homeowners are facing a $280,000 tax bill. In a state like California with additional tax, the overall payment would be over $450,000.”
They bought the house at $100k, and are walking away after taxes with $1.55m. Boo hoo? They’re saying they get a big tax bill because of inflation, but they’re also able to sell their house for 19x what they bought if for for similar reasons. If they want to sell it to me for $600k and have zero cap gains taxes, I’ll take them up on that offer.
It’s truly an insane housing market, but can they even afford to downsize? I have no way of judging the cost there, but certainly here there is less than $450k difference between a typical house and a 2-3 bedroom condo. Since ts the land that scarce, smaller places go up in value along with the larger, so you never know.
In a much lower cost of living area, when my Mom downsized from the big house I grew up in, she both took a sizeable gain and yet still had to take a mortgage to buy a 2 bedroom condo to replace it
So the DA is just allowed to say, “I don’t like any of my choices in this jury pool” and that’s just okay?? That doesn’t sound like a fair trial at all. It’s like grabbing the stack of lottery tickets from behind the counter and starting to scratch them off. When somebody comes to make you stop you just say, “it’s all good. I’m just trying to find one I like before I decide to play the lottery today.”
The process of jury selection is complex. It good that it’s this way, however it can be abused if the system itself (meant to keep it working properly) breaks down. One of the most important elements in that is that the officers of the court (both lawyers and the judge) are operating honestly and in good faith.
There’s a variety of reasons a juror can be rejected, with one of them being “the juror is not willing to follow the law, as written”. This seems to be what’s happening here, the law says that if a person does X, the penalty is fine Y, and these jurors are saying “I would not issue fine Y even if you prove they did X.”
To an extent, this is the system working they way it’s supposed to, one of the checks on unreasonable laws is being unable to find people willing to enforce them in good conscience.
Although that process can also be heavily abused, such as when all white juries would routinely find white defendants not guilty when they very obviously lynched black people.
Could I convict someone for a victimless crime that helped people? The answer is yes. Yes of course I could. I could also have an affair, blow up my car, do a naked tap dance on my boss’ desk, tell my kids that I don’t love them, and finish the day trying to underwater basketweave.
If the laws of the physics does not prevent me from doing something the answer to the question “can I x” is yes. If the question is it likely well that is a much different story.
Unfortunately this is a very cut and dry indication of intention of jury nullification, and that is a reason to dismiss a potential juror. They shouldn’t have said anything and then nullified once they actually got on the jury.
Not even intent, even the risk that someone has the ideological basis that could justify nullification in that case is enough to throw them out.
It’s actually why it took a while to prosecute the boston marathon bombers, because the jury selection ran face first into the fact that the jury pool was bostoners and bostoners lean pretty sharply against the death penalty, which is what the prosecutor was after.
Both parties get a certain number (like 2 or 3) chances to excuse anyone, no reason required. Outside of that, you’re raising technical reasons to the judge and the judge does the dismissing. If the judge doesn’t buy the reason and the other party doesn’t object, they may just end up on the jury.
This makes sense to me, but I also think that you shouldn’t be able to dismiss the jury en masse more than once. Jury pools are what, 20-30 people? If they can’t find 12 people and/or set 1 doesn’t work out for some reason and the judge agrees, you get one more shot and either accept the hand you’re dealt or drop the case.
When something of similar scope happens to the defense they can ask for a change of venue, and if it’s granted that’s it. The trial proceeds.
This is picked up on elsewhere in the thread that basically this, itself, is a form of jury nullification. If the law is so bad that they can’t ever get a jury together to try a case, then that law is unenforceable and effectively nullified.
This sounds like an abstraction of a general “problem” in the system. If you set a law with consequences that no reasonable person would think is proportionate to the crime no jury will convict someone of the crime. It was a real problem back when the death penalty was too broadly applied.
One particular thing with the abortion ban debates that is overlooked is how common women killing children under the age of one used to be before birth control/abortion legality. In those eras courts (usually somewhere between 1850 and early 1900’s) had to put new laws on the books to lower their punishments well off of full murder convictions because juries would refuse to apply full murder charges broadly to the category because at some level they accepted it as kind of a natural but volitle reaction to misery beyond the control of the person that the juries were very empathetic towards because a woman’s lot being particularly miserable was an accepted social norm.
These “problems” have ways of figuring themselves out. If you can’t reliably find a jury you have to change the law.
, “I would say the Extreme Court is imposing Sharia Law on the United States, but that would be a lie. Even under Sharia Law women are not left to suffer and die from a tubal pregnancy.”
In their defense, they stare at a screen all day looking for contraband. The human brain can only do a task like that well for maybe 15 minutes before zoning out.
I know people who worked in manufacturing. There was a quality control position where a worker had to look at glass going by them on a assembly line looking for defects. They studied how long a person could reliability do that before they started missing defects. It was only about 10 minutes.
I think if that story every time I go to the airport, or when the TSA get trashed for missing half of the weapons they’re supposed to be searching for.
They’re constantly being switched out at my airport (ATL). Either they are on a similarly short schedule, or I’m lucky enough to always hit shift change :/
No, I can’t really get a look at them. They’re positioned to hide the screen an my airport. Well and airport security is a pain, so I’m trying to get through as quickly as possible.
When I went to the airport last time they had one of those full body scan things we have to wave your arms in the air. I don’t understand why I wasn’t allowed to look at the picture, it’s a picture of me. I want to see it.
It’s night and day flying out of the US to somewhere in Europe. You go through all the rigmarole of TSA on the US side. Then when you land on the other side of the Atlantic they go “you look all right” and leave you alone.
Yeah but it took longer to say no than it would have to just turn the screen around so they’re just being dick heads.
And they do love to do that. Then the most unpleasant people it’s like they actually have a job and their job isn’t security their job is to be unpleasant awkward unhelpful rude and aggressive.
Probably, but letting every tourist have a look on it, take photos, organize toured xray picnics and have their ass eaten in security check will just complicate their life. I do recognize they’re assholes, but in this case I would do the same. Not my fucking job to tend idiots
Very much this. Four times I’ve accidentally flown with live ammo in my carry on and gotten through the TSA checkpoint unflagged. I can also verify that the hand swab thing they do doesn’t pick up gunpowder.
Yeah I was hoping for an update, but I just realized the Secret Service is going to be up this guy’s ass like a colonoscopy for a long time before we hear anything.
Not sure what exactly you want me to touch on. But pardons can’t be for future actions.
Let’s say you rob a bank and get pardoned. Having received that pardon doesn’t mean you can go rob that bank again free of charge.
If you had robbed that bank again after getting pardoned you’d face prison time. But if the president happens to believe in second third chances and grants you a second pardon for the second robbery you could walk free.
Gotcha, ya I didn’t think it was like omnibus/universal immunity for future offences aha. That would be like…presidential immunity and even that’s not supposed to be a forever thing, shouldn’teven be allowed during or should be heavily qualified
Edit: found it interesting that pardons can actually halt the prosecutorial effort altogether, like prior to a verdict. Maybe there should be a cooling off period like requiring all oending litigation to play out and then by then see where everybody’s at.
Yeah the idea behind a pardon is that the head executive is basically saying that you’ve been punished enough and that no further prosecution will occur. It’s similar to how they can stay a death penalty. But the big downside is that accepting a pardon means accepting legal guilt. You can’t keep fighting a case saying you weren’t ever guilty.
For an example of how far pardons go look at Nixon. The case was still being built, and Ford (idiotically) deemed that proceeding with a trial of a former president over election misdeeds would do too much damage to the nation’s trust in its political system. Nixon didn’t stand trial. Nixon only pled guilty by acceptance of the pardon. But because of that, had he been able to run again (he’d hit his term limit) and tried, he would’ve had a court case over if his crimes prohibited him from running again, same as if he’d gone to prison for them.
Yeah, he might catch some federal flack, but it seems most of his issues will be state affairs unless this wasn’t just hitting the worst possible car.
Even if he were a drunk terrorist, the feds would handle the attack, and as long he isn’t charged federally (if one even could be), the state can still slap an everyday DUI there.
There’s a couple ways they could make this a federal offence depending on the circumstances, ranging from destruction of federal property (assuming Biden was in a gov car) to attempted assassination of the active US president. Again depending on the circumstances.
Couldn’t agree more. He’s all over the news all the time, but Lemmy seems especially obsessed with him. I understand, given the demographics here, but I wish he would just go away forever
Can we just fully cancel his ass so we don’t have to hear about him any more. I yearn for the day I no longer hear about Musk or Trump on a daily basis.
This story highlights why news about this is still important. The investors wouldn’t be doing this if they thought a lot of people wouldn’t hear about it and be disgusted.
I couldn’t care less about whatever else he does, but when he does something awful, spread it as much as you can. We can see very clearly that not all news is good news for him. And one thing I do want to see is him discovering the consequences of his action, for once in his life.
True. I do have a feeling like he’ll get caught doing some fucked up shit and will go to jail but with all the money , its really hard to tell if he’ll ever go to jail as jails are for poor people. Trump is the best example. Hope he rots in jail but I doubt it
Nah he’ll just be forced to sell some shares before a big profit or they’ll arrange a boardroom coup to take away some of his autonomy, CEOs be warned, acting out like too much of a wildcard can appear self destructive and irrational to investors and shareholders alike
Just to be clear, this law wasn’t passed with any expectation of it ever being implemented. Everyone, including the Florida legislature, knew it was unconstitutional and would be overturned. The people it was passed for will never even know it was overturned though. It was passed for DeSantis who wanted red meat for his base. You should be happy that DeSantis is a terrible politican because he is a terrible person and belongs nowhere near the Presidency.
Shit politician and terrible person. But he’s pretty good at rocking some killer high heels, which I’m interpreting as his way to show LGBT and drag community support.
Conservative governments enacting laws that they know will fail court challenges, but that pander to their SoCon base has been happening increasingly over the last couple of decades.
I’m wondering about vaping and CBD/hemp too: I use a dry herb vape with hemp to quit smoking cigarettes. Works great but now I’m a little worried. My resting heart rate is 50 bpm and I get a decent amount of physical activity so hopefully I’m OK.
It's been too many years since I've had this argument to remember the details, but it's linked to specific additives that are usually in specific flavors. IIRC the mitigation is to not buy from sellers who use cheap flavorings and to avoid certain buttery flavors.
I no longer vape, but when I did it wasn't too hard to find sellers who would provide lab results or other certification that they did not use diacetyl in their flavorings.
Your link also distinguishes between the two:
vape-related injury concerning a teenage boy in Canada has recently gained the media’s attention as well. The 17-year-old boy vaped “intensively,” adding THC to his devices. He initially showed symptoms aligning with bronchiolitis (lung condition normally caused by a bacterial or viral infection), but many patients that have vape-related illnesses in the United States have experienced damage to the alveoli; this type of injury was not found. Instead, his case aligned more with an injury called “popcorn lung,” an ailment most commonly seen in factory workers of microwave popcorn plants nearly 20 years ago. This new vape-related case calls for further exploration into the toxicity of vape liquid, as the patient’s condition could have been caused by the THC added to the vaping devices, or the chemical that affected factory workers in the past - diacetyl. Diacetyl is present in many e-cigarette flavors [14]. The American Lung Association has called for the FDA to require that diacetyl and other hazardous chemicals be removed from e-cigarette cartridges.
BHO extracted products and ones that use additional terpenes for flavor/as a diluent agent should be avoided. This does not only apply to black market/vitamin E acetate containing carts. This very much includes mainstream carts available on the shelves of dispensaries.
If you’re vaping BHO extracted products/products with added terpenes, then you are doing damage to your lungs. Dry herb vaping and live rosin excluded.
You have to be so careful with the extraction methods and diluent agents when it comes to vaping concentrates (that includes regulated vape carts–not just black market carts).
[Cannabis] extracts are not diluted in propylene glycol or glycerol like nicotine due to their hydrophobic properties. Instead, various forms of oils including vegetable oils, terpenes, and tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E acetate) have been reported as diluents. In most reported cases of EVALI, additional flavoring additives are also added to products.
Although many of these diluent agents and flavorings have been “generally recognized as safe” for oral ingestion by the FDA, recent research shows that when heated to form an aerosol and inhaled, conditions including bronchitis, bronchiolitis, acute hypoxic respiratory distress, lipoid-associated pneumonia, and pneumonitis may result.[1]
The terpenes used in vape carts to dilute and reintroduce flavor and aroma (which is lost in some extraction methods, like BHO) also produces harmful byproducts when vaped. [2]
Another problem with cheap vape pens and e-cigs is the cheap atomizers/coils used. There have been confirmed cases of these coils/atomizers leeching heavy metals into the vapor produced.[3]
It’s always important to consider the risk-mitigation approach, but a lot of people don’t comprehend that not all vaping concentrates/methods are equal, and some should absolutely be avoided.
My biggest complaint with most cannabis research is the failure to subgroup results by delivery mechanism.
Do people that don’t smoke at all but use oral cannabis have higher heart complication risks, and if so how much are they elevated compared to the norm and compared to the subgroups that smoke?
But no, it’s usually just catchy headlines about “cannabis correlated with X” when I get the feeling many times it’s really “smoking things correlated with X.”
But it didn’t and even says so… I’d take this with a grain of salt. It’s not very scientific IMO.
A limitation of the study is that it relied on data that did not specify whether the marijuana was inhaled or eaten. According to researchers, how marijuana is ingested may influence cardiovascular outcomes.
Israel is playing a really dangerous game here. Not just in terms of its barbarism towards the Palestinians but because they’re risking the destabilization of the whole region.
Saudi Arabia is still talking normalization. The whole point of Iran providing the Oct 6th missles was to stop that. Looks like the region is stabilizating despite this.
The support of the US, the UK, France, Germany and some smaller European countries like Austria needs to be constantly pointed out, as does their profound, two-weights two-measures, hypocrisy when you look at their differing postures on the situation in Ukraine vs the situation in Palestine.
This would never have happenned (including Hamas’ terrorist attacks) if Israel had long ago been hit with sanctions for not abiding to the UN-agreed borders and their Appartheid state, just like South-Africa was (interestingly, the UK back then also “unwaveringly” supported the Appartheid regime in SA) until they changed their ways, and even now that it has happenned, the continued “unwavering” provision of material, information and even diplomatic support to an Israel already commiting Genocide means the leaders of those nations - and by extension the nations themselves (all of which are supposedly democracies) - share the blame for this Genocide.
There are and always will be nations that fall to Fascism like Israel, and whilst fascists applying their “Strength is the only way” view of the world by acting in violent ways without any moral considerations is their choice and hence their fault, the entirety of the fault is not only theirs: those who provide cover and support the fascists are also to blame for freeing them to act as they do, and worse, those supporting the fascists in their exercise of violence are de facto accomplices in their violent deeds - they might not be the one “holding the knife” in the murder but they certainly provided it knowing what it was going to be used for.
Ahhh but I don’t have enough cancer yet :( On a serious note, sometimes people shit talk California but they have a massive economy and when they do things like this it has a huge positive benefit for the entire country. Most companies will just reformulate instead of having California specific products so everyone benefits.
To me this is amazing news, I am allergic to Red Dye #3. If I eat something that has it, within seconds my throat closes and I can barely breathe. The worst part is that there is no need to use it. Sweet Tarts for example uses beets to get the red coloring in their candy.
Most brands will reformulate and all their products will be compliant rather than making a California only version and a rest of the us version. They aren’t going to just stop serving California either, it’s the largest economy in the nation and if it was on its own it would be roughly equivalent to Germany gdp wise
Those can be kind of hit & miss for food allergies. They prick your back with them, but if your allergic reactions happen in, say, your throat, there’s a good chance you won’t show as allergic. I found the pollen/dander prick test to be a lot more accurate than the food test.
According to the one I took, I’m allergic to both pineapple and mushrooms, which I’m not. Also according to the test, I’m not allergic to any tree nuts at all, which eating those make my lips/mouth/throat swell and itch, in addition to making it hurt/difficult to breathe.
Yep! I had problems with one of those red dyes as a kid. Made me go ape shit mode and I was violent every single time I had a candy with it. Then all the other time I was hyperactive but harmless.
That is either beholden to big business, downright stupid, or both.
If yoyu want an even more blatant example of this, look into the history of stevia and the FDA. Which includes fun stuff like the FDA burning crates of herbal tea because that tea contained stevia, declaring it an unsafe food additive seemingly entirely because NutraSweet wanted them to, and not that much later creating rules that allowed it to be sold to any one in any quantity for any reason as an “herbal dietary supplement”, but only so long as you didn’t mention that it had a flavor. Mentioning that it was sweet tasting transformed it from an herbal dietary supplement that’s basically harmless into a dangerous unsafe food additive.
As someone who is not an only atheist but an anti-theist, I have no love for the Catholic Church and either its ancient, middle-age, or present form. However, I’m also a realist. For the Catholic Church to even be publicly willing to discuss such matters (especially things like LGBTQ issues and female ordainment), well, even I’ll admit that something decent may come from this in the end, even if it’s not all what decent society may want (or demand).
In its history, the Catholic Church has been on of the world’s most renowned institutions for being inflexible in its conservative dogma. Extremely rarely do the even ever discuss openness, especially publicly, to changing doctrine. This is one of those extremely few times. I would be extremely shocked if nothing came from this, especially considering the current pope.
Certainly, there are many tractors that will hold back the more radical of proposed changes, but now is the time where we will see any serious changes were likely to see for a long time within the Catholic Church. I’m excited to see what manages to get done at this synod.
What the fuck are you going on about? Entrails and shit go get some fucking help, dude.
The gross shit you’re talking about here isn’t any better than what the church does. So who takes care of your entrails after you’ve de-entrailed all the people you decided need to go?
Hey, not knowing something isn’t wrong. It isn’t illiteracy to not have read whatever that is related to, remember the xkcd comic on today’s 10,000. I also only read the quote on lemmy.
il·lit·er·ate
/i(l)ˈlidərət/
adjective
adjective: illiterate
unable to read or write.
"his parents were illiterate"
Similar:
unable to read or write
unlettered
analphabetic
functionally illiterate
Opposite:
literate ignorant in a particular subject or activity.
"the extent to which voters are politically illiterate"
Similar:
ignorant
unknowledgeable
uneducated
untaught
unschooled
untutored
untrained
uninstructed
uninformed
unlearned
unread
unenlightened
benighted
backward
nescient
Opposite:
literate
knowledgeable
uncultured or poorly educated.
"the ignorant, illiterate Town Council"
(especially of a piece of writing) showing a lack of education, especially an inability to read or write well.
"as you can see, I have corrected your misspelled, illiterate letter"
And what are you going to do with your newfound decision that I’m illiterate? How are you justifying that against my apparent ability to read and write(type)? Thats rhetorical.
Sorry I’m not part of your life experience, and have my own which hasn’t exposed me to all the same things as you. I’m 100% positive that a great deal of what I consider common knowledge is lacking from your experience as well. Welcome to life.
Everybody better read up on this guy, or AlwaysNowNeverNotMe is gonna attack your basic human skillsets.
Whats your problem with Satan anyway? you should be so fucking lucky to be such a majestic being. Your notion of satan comes from power hungry people telling you what to think and be afraid of, not from actual scripture, FYI. not my problem you cant keep the two separate. Not that any of it is real to begin with there champ.
Wtf. I’m saying that the Catholic Church only makes major changes to dogma once a millennium or so, and I’m pretty interested in what they’re gonna do since it affects the lives of countless billions of people. You can quibble over the fact that you don’t get all you want, and I agree that they’re still a shitty theistic monolithic organization, but I was talking about what benefits a change in their dogma would bring, not fixating on the shortcomings.
Until the pope can stop his priests and congregation from fucking children, is there any reason to think there will be any positive change?
Like most figures in religion and Catholicism, the pope is a fairweather friend for Catholics. When he’s singing their tune they’re happy to quote him and laud him for his god given thoughts. When he isn’t, well we get exactly the reaction he’s been given: his own people saying he is wrong even though they were claiming he is God’s earthly representative just moments earlier.
I’m not outright saying nothing at all good can come of the effort to make change, as there will be some small minority that actually adhere to it, but I don’t see that happening for the vast majority of Catholics who will continue in their bigotry.
Change over generations will occur moreso, but I think that was coming regardless of his stance. At least that’s what recent history has shown us.
This is a laborious argument that adds nothing to the conversation. You can choose to read my words childishly or you can read them as they are meant. Everyone else was able to parse them, catch up with them.
I am sure this is a “be careful what you wish for” moment, but part of me is hoping that the American conservative Catholics are insane enough to try appointing their own Trump-aligned antipope and schism from the church, just so that the more rational Catholics in the US can have their literal “Come to Jesus” realization about how far gone the political right has become.
I firmly believe that there is a scary number of Americans who would get behind such a move. But at this point, I have just about accepted that the political divide in the US will not end peacefully, so if that’s our fate, I’d like to at least have the lines drawn cleanly.
A bit different; protestantism disagrees with the practice of having a centralized church at all, while other schisms in the Catholic church that took place in the past still maintained the church structure. They just appointed antipopes that were more politically aligned with their ideals.
For the Catholic Church to even be publicly willing to discuss such matters (especially things like LGBTQ issues and female ordainment), well, even I’ll admit that something decent may come from this in the end, even if it’s not all what decent society may want (or demand).
Nothing will come from this.
It’s not a “huh, maybe we were doing something wrong, maybe we should change” meeting, it’s a “Oh, the peasants are getting uppity again, quick, say that were graciously considering human rights or something to calm them down” meeting.
It’s the KKK holding a meeting considering on whether to allow black people to join.
We don’t want something decent to come from the Catholic Church, though. It’s the fact that they are so backwards and hateful that is causing them to lose adherents like crazy. This is what needs to continue. Making moves like accepting women and LGBTQ people only helps them stay alive even longer.
All jokes aside, naked woman who was planning on staying in the room for a few weeks and it just happens to be the room that the employee gives out when he thinks all the other rooms are taken? It’s been a long time since I had friends working in hotels, but the last few rooms available were usually held as a reserve for situations like this (i.e. so they have an ace in the hole to help out important/pissed off guests). So the fact that this exact room is the same room that already has a long-term, naked tenant is a little fishy.
It’s all just circumstantial, and not even particularly strong evidence, but it certainly seems suggestive of some sort of prostitution.
Plenty of hotels are small enough that they’d only need one employee at night. If that employee walks off the job or something sure, but the naked woman screams fake to me.
but the last few rooms available were usually held as a reserve for situations like this
Just a friendly counterpoint, but when I worked the front desk of a major hotel chain the rooms were overbooked each and every single night, purposely.
The front office manager even had a very special formula to calculate to try to get right at the 100% occupancy rate.
On a tangial side note, it really sucked working the front desk when you overbooked and someone who comes in with a guaranteed by credit card reservation has no room and you have to turn them away; fun times.
Fair enough. My buddies’ experience was mostly before overbooking was very common or advanced (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth!), and it was at a smaller, independent hotel.
They’re included with the ones that offer internet access for no additional charge, just typically not there in person (or not without going through some extra steps first anyway).
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.