I just had the odd experience of using a manufacturer’s discount card to pick up a medication for my wife. The medication is relatively expensive and seldom covered by insurance.
According to the information on the card, if you have private insurance which covers the medication, the discount card covers the co-pay, so you pay nothing. However, if your insurance doesn’t cover the medication, the discount card covers the cost, and you still pay nothing.
Our insurance didn’t cover the cost, and we didn’t pay anything for the medication.
Odd that there is no mention of the parents contacting the police and working through them to get the images down Technically and legally the photos would be considered child porn Since it’s over the Internet it would bring Federal charges even though there maybe State charges Somethings were handled wrong if all the kid is getting is probation
Full textThe US and China resumed semi-official nuclear arms talks in March for the first time in five years, with Beijing’s representatives telling US counterparts that they would not resort to atomic threats over Taiwan, according to two American delegates who attended. The Chinese representatives offered reassurances after their US interlocutors raised concerns that China might use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons if it faced defeat in a conflict over Taiwan. Beijing views the democratically governed island as its territory, a claim rejected by the government in Taipei. “They told the US side that they were absolutely convinced that they are able to prevail in a conventional fight over Taiwan without using nuclear weapons,” said scholar David Santoro, the US organiser of the Track Two talks, the details of which are being reported by Reuters for the first time. Participants in Track Two talks are generally former officials and academics who can speak with authority on their government’s position, even if they are not directly involved with setting it. Government-to-government negotiations are known as Track One. Washington was represented by about half a dozen delegates, including former officials and scholars at the two-day discussions, which took place in a Shanghai hotel conference room. Beijing sent a delegation of scholars and analysts, which included several former People’s Liberation Army officers. A State Department spokesperson said in response to Reuters’ questions that Track Two talks could be “beneficial”. The department did not participate in the March meeting though it was aware of it, the spokesperson said. Such discussions cannot replace formal negotiations “that require participants to speak authoritatively on issues that are often highly compartmentalized within (Chinese) government circles,” the spokesperson said. Members of the Chinese delegation and Beijing’s defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment. The informal discussions between the nuclear-armed powers took place with the US and China at odds over major economic and geopolitical issues, with leaders in Washington and Beijing accusing each other of dealing in bad faith. The two countries briefly resumed Track One talks over nuclear arms in November but those negotiations have since stalled, with a top US official publicly expressing frustration at China’s responsiveness. The Pentagon, which estimates that Beijing’s nuclear arsenal increased by more than 20% between 2021 and 2023, said in October that China “would also consider nuclear use to restore deterrence if a conventional military defeat in Taiwan” threatened CCP rule. China has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control and has over the past four years stepped up military activity around the island. The Track Two talks are part of a two-decade nuclear weapons and posture dialogue that stalled after the Trump administration pulled funding in 2019. After the COVID-19 pandemic, semi-official discussions resumed on broader security and energy issues, but only the Shanghai meeting dealt in detail with nuclear weapons and posture. Santoro, who runs the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum think-tank, described “frustrations” on both sides during the latest discussions but said the two delegations saw reason to continue talking. More discussions were being planned in 2025, he said. No first-use? The US Department of Defense estimated last year that Beijing has 500 operational nuclear warheads and will probably field more than 1,000 by 2030. That compares to 1,770 and 1,710 operational warheads deployed by the US and Russia respectively. The Pentagon said that by 2030, much of Beijing’s weapons will likely be held at higher readiness levels. Since 2020, China has also modernised its arsenal, starting production of its next-generation ballistic missile submarine, testing hypersonic glide vehicle warheads and conducting regular nuclear-armed sea patrols. Weapons on land, in the air and at sea give China the “nuclear triad” – a hallmark of a major nuclear power. A key point the US side wanted to discuss, according to Santoro, was whether China still stood by its no-first-use and minimal deterrence policies, which date from the creation of its first nuclear bomb in the early 1960s. Minimal deterrence refers to having just enough atomic weapons to dissuade adversaries. China is also one of two nuclear powers – the other being India – to have pledged not to initiate a nuclear exchange. Chinese military analysts have speculated that the no-first-use policy is conditional – and that nuclear arms could be used against Taiwan’s allies – but it remains Beijing’s stated stance. Santoro said the Chinese delegates told US representatives that Beijing maintained these policies and that “‘we are not interested in reaching nuclear parity with you, let alone superiority.'” “‘Nothing has changed, business as usual, you guys are exaggerating’,” Santoro said in summarising Beijing’s position. ‘Risk and opacity’ Top US arms control official Bonnie Jenkins told Congress in May that China had not responded to nuclear-weapons risk reduction proposals that Washington raised during last year’s formal talks. China has yet to agree to further government-to-government meetings. Bejing’s “refusal to substantively engage” in discussions over its nuclear build-up raises questions around its “already ambiguous stated “no-first-use” policy and its nuclear doctrine more broadly,” the State Department spokesperson told Reuters. Alberque of the Henry Stimson Centre said that China relied heavily on “risk and opacity” to mitigate US nuclear superiority and there was “no imperative” for Beijing to have constructive discussions. China’s expanded arsenal – which includes anti-ship cruise missiles, bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines – exceeded the needs of a state with a minimal deterrence and no-first-use policy, Alberque said. (Edited by Georgi Gotev)
Imagine your friend that does not know anything about linux, don’t you think this would make them not install the firefox flatpak and potentially think that linux is unsafe?...
Yes but surely you’re aware that even the most new-user-friendly distros and their tools aren’t necessarily aimed at new users.
That warning is a perfect example of how Linux developers choose which hill to die on. They post a warning for an app that everyone knows can deliver bad times to two camps of users; those that know and don’t care and those that don’t understand the warning. If we could quantify the helpfulness of that warning, odds are that it saved 0 users from malicious action from that avenue of attack.
Never expect Linux as a whole to be “helpful” to the new crowd.
I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions. This possibility is important, because much in human existence is based upon hope without any real understanding of the odds. Indeed, we are all ill in the same way, mortally ill. But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect.
Revolutionary suicide does not mean that I and my comrades have a death wish; it means just the opposite. We have such a strong desire to live with hope and human dignity that existence without them is impossible. When reactionary forces crush us, we must move against these forces, even at the risk of death. We will have to be driven out with a stick.
For an institution belonging to a religion supposedly focused on protecting children, Gateway made an awful lot of references to this monster’s sins, but precisely zero reference to his horrific crimes.
I was curious so I looked in the modlog at your deleted comments. Some of them I honestly agree with being removed, but there are some odd deletions there.
Like your comment that was removed for “reason: Human wave tactics meme” is pretty tame and doesn’t break any actual rules. Seems like a mod on [email protected] is just butt hurt by anti-russia comments. What a weird reason for removal.
Edit: wow, just went down the rabbit hole of looking at what those mods in particular have been removing. They’re all very obviously pro China and Russia.
Like this one was particularly interesting. On a post titled ‘China doesn’t need to invade to achieve Taiwanese unification’ a user commented just “*occupation” and the comment was removed for reason: Google White terror KMT. So… that’s not a real reason. Just an abuse of power by the mod due to political bias. Cool.
Edit x2: That said, thank you lemmy for making everything so transparent so we can see all the info we need to keep everyone accountable
Hi all . I currently have version 2023.06.25 installed, stable. Tell me how to install the latest version 20240612? I see a lot of changes here codeberg.org/…/d8bcd5c7044e28c6e20778ea25f6b90709… If I understand correctly the mechanism for introducing blob objects has changed, how can I check the ROM after I run the command $...
I had a set of four for getting ethernet around the few places I rented. There was maybe the odd quality decrease when there was a lot of electrical load, but they worked great otherwise.
Its all about how an application goes from “I would like to display X on a screen” to how X actually gets displayed. Wayland is effectively a language (technically a protocol) that graphical applications can speak to describe how they would like to be drawn. It’s then up to a different program more deeply embedded in your OS to listen to and act on those instructions (this program is called a Wayland compositor). There’s a lot more to it (handling keyboard input monitor settings, etc), but that’s the general idea.
Wayland is a (relatively) new way of thinking about this process, that tries to take into account the wide variety of input and output devices that exist today, and also tries to mitigate some of the security risks that were inherent to previous approaches (before Wayland, it was very easy for one application to “look at” what was being displayed in a completely different app, or even to listen to what keys were being typed even when the app isn’t focussed).
Thing is, change is hard, doubly so in the consensus driven world of Linux/FOSS. So, until the last couple of years or so, adoption of Wayland was quite slow. Now we’re at the point where most things work at least as well in Wayland, but there’s still odd bits of software that either haven’t been ported, or that still rely on some features that don’t exist in Wayland, often because of the aforementioned security risks.
Still figuring out what c/NonCredibleDefense is as a community, but I have learned enough to know that, odd as it sounds, this picture would not be a fit for that community.
YOLO: especially with thugs like PHP you only affect one page at a time and with low traffic the odds of a problem is small
Maintenance page: temporarily show a page. Some servers like IIS have this built in. Otherwise it’s a simple update to httpd conf
In a cluster environment, just take the node you’re updating out of rotation, and only update one node at a time.
Copy and switch like you suggested. Can be combined with any of the above and is a smart move if upload is slow or can be interrupted, or it’s cumbersome to restore the old files
Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
Not true–Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
Maybe I’m mis-remembering the details of the case, as this isn’t really something I’ve paid much attention to in the past, I don’t know, 3 years, but I’m fairly certain the person who obtained the gun for him was charged and convicted with some crime; is it a crime to give a gun to a minor but not for the minor to possess one? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Is it that it’s illegal in Illinois to possess one, but not in Wisconsin? My understanding was that the gun charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed basically on a technicality using language that was written to apply to hunting rifles and was being applied to a rifle clearly not intended for that purpose. Maybe that’s the short-barreled clause? I’m not sure of the specifics.
Seems pretty obvious that is the reason–he’s even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, “for my protection”.
And if one isn’t starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.
I don’t know what the local culture is like in Wisconsin, so some of my view might stem from trying to view it through the lens of my local community, but I know I, for one, am immediately on edge when I see someone walking around open-carrying a firearm in a public place. It doesn’t happen frequently, so maybe that’s part of it, but if I attended a protest or demonstration, particularly one that the police are antagonistic to, anyone - no matter what they’re doing - who is carrying a gun like that is, in my mind, making the situation worse just by their presence. If they’re a protester themselves, they’re just inviting police violence and if they’re not a protester, my perception would be that they’re doing it with the intent to intimidate. Maybe that’s an incorrect perception and I am willing to accept that, but I can’t imagine that there weren’t plenty of people there who share that perception.
What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all it’d take is one who didn’t to cause a problem.
There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I can’t speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.
Not really a long way at all (20 miles),
Maybe ‘a long way’ was poor wording but the point I was trying to get at is that he doesn’t live there; it’s not like this was happening in his town.
Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black’s offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.
I was only aware of the first part of this - that they denied knowing or wanting him there, so if the rest of this is true, I will concede this point.
Still, this is beside the point–it doesn’t matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views.
It’s relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there. I’m not calling him a white supremacist (nor am I calling him not a white supremacist, I really don’t know what his views are on that topic, nor do I really care), and I’m certainly not calling him a serial killer. I think it’s pretty clear from the trial that he isn’t legally guilty. However, I do think he’s morally guilty because he put himself in a situation where, in my view, a reasonable person should have been able to foresee that something like this might happen. Then, afterwards, rather than condemning the glorification of it, he just went along with it, hook, line and sinker.
Honestly, if it hadn’t been for that last bit, I’d probably hold a different view, and…
All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It’s no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren’t doing that.
Maybe you’re right, and he’s a product of the circumstances, but he didn’t, and doesn’t (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there. He’s going along with (at the very least) the glorification of his actions, and I cannot see him as anything but in the wrong as a result.
I will say that you make some compelling points and maybe my initial stance was too severe - that is to say, maybe he wasn’t literally looking for trouble, but he certainly wasn’t taking what I see as some very basic steps to avoid trouble.
All I’m talking about is what I know about, and that’s the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)–as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a ‘random’ civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.
The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit; I don’t think it’s surprising at all that everyone’s perception of the details differ so greatly. The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.
I can’t imagine that there weren’t plenty of people there who share that perception.
I myself also would be very nervous around someone being armed like that in public. But I don’t live in an open carry state, either, so it would be very out of place for me, as well.
That said, you don’t have to imagine. Just look at the facts of the matter:
He was obviously and visibly armed from the moment he showed up
There was no freakout over his arrival, nor over the extended period of time he was walking around doing things, obviously and visibly armed the entire time. There is plenty of video of him there while armed, and it’s clear he is not drawing any more attention than the average person in any of the footage up to the point where Rosenbaum put himself and Rittenhouse at the center of attention with his mad raving.
Given those facts, it is clear that Rittenhouse was not armed to an extent that those around him found more than mundane.
What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all it’d take is one who didn’t to cause a problem.
There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I can’t speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.
Generally speaking, if someone goes to a dangerous place to try and improve the situation there to the best of their ability, despite the potential risks to their own safety, one would consider that courageous and admirable, not foolish. I’d say it’s very arguable that only pre-existing bias is preventing Rittenhouse from being perceived similarly, given that every single action he’s known to have taken in Kenosha that day was either morally neutral (I consider defending your life to be human nature, and not a moral or immoral act), or morally good (cleaning graffiti, extinguishing fires, handing out water bottles on request, giving basic medical aid to the extent he could from his lifeguard training).
Being as objective as possible, and going by the facts, what can one realistically argue that he did that was immoral on that day? This is a genuine question–I can’t find a single actual act that merits criticism, and I’ve found consistently that everyone criticizing his actions either straight-up gets facts about what he literally did incorrect, and bases their conclusion on that, or colors his decision to be there as malicious in and of itself (though, again, though obviously we can’t read his mind that day, the actions he took that day simply do not support that assumed malicious intent at all, quite the contrary in fact).
But that’s not even all of it–his most ardent supporters on the extreme right are getting it wrong ALSO, and do ridiculous things like claiming his shooting of people we later discovered were actually pretty shitty people was itself a morally good act, and completely ignore the things he did that day that actually WERE objectively morally good (graffiti cleaning et al, as mentioned above). This is ridiculous, and focusing completely in the wrong place–he didn’t ‘do the right thing’ by shooting people, he protected his life against a few crazy and violent individuals, and that’s obviously neither ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
Although I will say, that one video did demonstrate that Rittenhouse’s trigger discipline is admirable (immediately after shooting Grosskreutz, his finger was off the trigger and around the guard, as he carefully got back up to his feet, and overall, he didn’t fire a single shot that struck anyone other than his intended target, no spray and pray, no wild shots, he used his weapon to the absolute minimal extent necessary to neutralize each of the people who tried to kill him)–if every cop’s in the US was as good as his, we’d probably have a lot fewer police scandals in this country.
the point I was trying to get at is that he doesn’t live there; it’s not like this was happening in his town.
But again, he had family and friends there–while he may not have lived there, I’d say it’s very fair to categorize Kenosha as part of ‘his community’, considering how many ties he has to it, and how he regularly spent time there.
It’s relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there.
I don’t really find that relevant though. Suppose we knew for a fact that he was a straight-up racist and/or adherent to all sorts of extreme right-wing political views. Let’s say he was literally the far-right stereotype.
The facts of the matter are still what they are–he took not a single action in Kenosha could be fairly/objectively described as an expression of such views–he did nothing that you could look at and say ‘oh, it’s because of view far-right political stance X that he decided to do this action Y’. He’s on video at one point saying he was there "to protect this business, and part of my job is there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.”
Hypothetically, if someone goes their whole life hating a certain race of people, but throughout their life, never actually mistreats anyone of that race, then the end result, as far as real-world consequences, is the same as if that person did not have those views.
Frankly, I don’t really care what his views are. I care about what he did.
he didn’t, and doesn’t (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there.
I don’t think he should feel remorse. Remorse is for having done things wrong. I don’t think he could have handled the situations Rosenbaum et al put him in any better than he did. I literally can’t think of a course of action from the moment Rosenbaum began to charge at him that’s different from what he did, and also inarguably better/smarter.
But regret? He clearly regrets that things went down the way they did. The crying he did as he relived those events during the trial, that left-wing ideologues love to mock him for, and callously claim are crocodile tears, instead of a 17 year-old coming to grips with the kind of day’s events that would traumatize ANYONE for life, are a clear show of that. Frankly, just talking about this particular bit makes me feel disgusted all over again, at all of the things I saw and read around that time, on Reddit. People who pretend to be champions for mental health instantly abandon their supposed virtues because they’ve dehumanized Rittenhouse to such an extreme degree that they can’t even fathom that he is a normal human being who just might be traumatized by having to look death in the face not once, but THREE times in a day. It’s sickening…but I digress.
Now, after the fact, he has on at least one occasion I know of, poked fun at himself with that same infamous image of him weeping. But humor is a common coping mechanism, especially for young males in this country, who are scarcely allowed to deal with trauma in any other way without being criticized for it (see above). I would not look at things like that and conclude ‘oh, he actually just didn’t give a shit’ or anything like that. We also don’t know what things are like for him when he’s not in public view. Hell, he likely still has nightmares about that day…
The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit;
That’s for sure–even post-verdict I saw Redditors claiming “Rittenhouse’s victims” were all black, and that it was a racially-motivated crime.
I don’t think it’s surprising at all that everyone’s perception of the details differ so greatly.
Maybe not surprising, but it’s all the more reason that it’s important to push back against misinformation, especially when it’s ideologically-driven. It deserves nothing less than relentless calling out, in my opinion.
I genuinely appreciate that you’ve actually been reading what I’m writing–much better than “fuck off fascist loser” and the like, which you will find in this thread, not too far from this comment chain.
The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.
I haven’t read this statement, I’m going to look it up real quick and quote bits I find ‘interesting’:
Kyle Rittenhouse’s conscious decision to take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police <-- Oh, there’s a lie in the very first sentence, lol. At the very least, it’s confirmed that Rosenbaum was NOT protesting. He’d just been released that very day from a hospital after a suicide attempt, went to his 'girlfriend’s house, where he was turned away due to a restraining order against him (yeah…), and basically ended up in the mix in Kenosha by apparent coincidence. Witness testimony described him as “extremely aggressive”–one quick example before moving on.
Kyle Rittenhouse was a juvenile who traveled across state lines on a vigilante mission, was allowed by police to roam the streets of Kenosha with an assault rifle and ended up shooting three people and killing two. These are the simple, tragic facts. <-- Holy shit, lol. “Vigilante mission” is pure assumption, not a fact, the police allowed EVERYONE to “roam the streets”, so that’s meaningless to point out, and “ended up shooting three people and killing two” is technically a fact, but is a MASSIVE lie of omission to just say he “ended up” doing that, it completely ignores all of the other relevant events before, during, and after. The ACLU clearly had a narrative they went to great lengths to push, and were more than happy to ignore any inconvenient truth that might get in the way of that narrative.
I often feel like the odd one out in this conversation because I feel like I’m the only person with no strong feelings one way or the other. Like I could be totally okay with never having kids, but also fine with having kids.
No kids, ever. I can hardly take care of myself, can’t even be trusted with a plant, and I find them disgusting. Who will care for me when I am old? I have worked long and hard with the elderly, and knowing how many of them were abandoned by their families, it is easy to see that my odds are better investing the money I would use to raise a child, in a retirement fund instead.
But with how broke I am, I am not even getting to do the retirement fund thing, so yay. Glad I didn’t let an ex change my mind when I was earning a lot back in the day, because those jobs got “optimized” and outsourced.
Oh i didn’t mean to correct your experience but rather the political take you extracted from it. Your personal experience in grade school doesn’t represent a systemic problem. The population we’re talking about here (north african young immigrants fresh off the boat who need remedial linguistic classes) is, what, a few thousand people a year ? You don’t close a country’s borders just because you can’t handle a few thousand unruly adolescents.
My other point is that, while religious conservatism is a real danger to modern society, it is not driven by immigrants who have few resources and are primarily motivated by their own survival. It is driven by well established people who already have the French nationality and are comfortable enough to afford being “rebels” to the system. It’s also not specific to islam - have you seen what Christians are up to these days ? Have you seen what Jews are up to ? Current news seem to indicate that the Abrahamic-minded are not taking kindly to the 3rd Millenium.
Also as a side note. 1 in 3 is not good enough. Most people are risk adverse, give them 33% odds of something positive and they’ll tell you to shove it.
That wasn’t my point. My point is that the majority of immigrants come for study or work and they integrate with no issues.
The people the RN accuses of not integrating are French people with French passports and it is their fucking god-given right to not “integrate” with the culture around them. I was a nerdy vegan kid in a village of rugby players, hunters and delicatessen producers. I never fit in with that peasant culture - should my nationality be put into question ? No ? Then why is the standard different when it’s a kid from arab descent ?
They are French citizens they don’t owe any allegiance to any ideology or way of life and that’s one of the pillars upon which this country was built. They wake up and go to work like me, they pay taxes like me, when they’re caught speeding they get a ticket like me. They bring their kids to the same school where i bring mine. They complain about trains being late and the administration being incompetent. Let’s leave them the fuck alone alright ? We’re living together just fine.
Talk to your employer about taking on the role on a “fixed term” basis of say 6 months. Tell them honestly why and see what they say. If you’re concerned about the lack in money see if you can take the 9 to 5 and supplement with the odd Sunday shift back on the floor to prop the wages up if that suits you.
US Drug Pricing - Mfg Coupon "As Low As $5/Mo"
This is very, very niche, but I couldn’t think of a more suitable place so I’ll give it a go....
Girl, 15, speaks out after classmate made deepfake nudes of her and posted online (www.independent.co.uk)
China tells US it would prevail in a Taiwan conflict without using nukes (www.euractiv.com)
I was looking at the firefox flatpak on flathub. Won't this warning make a non tech-savy user anxious? This might make them think they'll get a virus or something like that. (programming.dev)
Imagine your friend that does not know anything about linux, don’t you think this would make them not install the firefox flatpak and potentially think that linux is unsafe?...
New York’s Fat Beach Day gives plus-size people a space to be themselves (www.theguardian.com)
Jacob Riis Beach hosts the day of body positivity and fun, in the city at the heart of the fat acceptance movement...
Robert Morris warned sex abuse accuser she could be prosecuted for seeking compensation, emails show (www.nbcnews.com)
Trump says he wants foreign nationals who graduate from US colleges to ‘automatically’ receive green cards (www.cnn.com)
Easier said than done (lemmy.world)
How to install Libreboot in 2024?
Hi all . I currently have version 2023.06.25 installed, stable. Tell me how to install the latest version 20240612? I see a lot of changes here codeberg.org/…/d8bcd5c7044e28c6e20778ea25f6b90709… If I understand correctly the mechanism for introducing blob objects has changed, how can I check the ROM after I run the command $...
Networking Dilemma
Hi there good folk,...
What is your favourite game with native Linux port? (factorio.com)
For me, it’s Factorio....
Fortifications for residences of the little creatures that live on the head (lemmy.world)
Old timers know (sh.itjust.works)
UK's richest family get jail terms for exploiting staff at Swiss villa (www.rawstory.com)
My Windows Computer Just Doesn't Feel Like Mine Anymore (www.howtogeek.com)
Kyle Rittenhouse's family plead for money as they face eviction (lemmy.world)
Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
which one do you prefer? having kids or no kids? and why??
French women voters swing sharply to far right (www.politico.eu)
France’s National Rally has sought to style itself a defender of women’s rights — partly by attacking its traditional bogeyman: immigration....
Why in 2024 do people still believe in religion? (serious)
Death toll tops 1,000 after Haj marked by extreme heat (www.channelnewsasia.com)
I'm a nurse working bedside. Should I take a mostly administrative job as case manager or study nurse?
cross-posted from: ani.social/post/4263335...