The first randomized, controlled clinical study to attempt to study this “reversal” protocol’s effectiveness came to an abrupt stop in 2019, after three participants landed in the hospital hemorrhaging blood.

The general horrificness of this aside. How do you recruit participants for a study like this? “Do you want to be pregnant but don’t mind having an abortion? Would you like an abortion but don’t mind if you actually get it reversed?”

Only 1 concurrent player per copy in the family library. So to play together you’d still have to both buy the game.

That and of course Slay The Spire, IMHO peak rogue like deck builder.

You can turn down everything to minimal (so maximal battery life) and have a perfect playing experience with that.

There is also another aspect:

While many European empires colonized and oppressed the local populations brutally, eradication was never the point. The point was always extraction of wealth.

With the Nazis there was not even a pretense of working towards any goal other than complete annihilation. The Nazis engineered death according to modern, industrial principles. They did not just dehumanize their victims by declaring their lives worthless. They calculated a value of exactly what it was worth to extinguish a jewish/handicapped/lgbtq/communist/sinti/roma/non-white life and then went about spending that money as efficiently as possible.

In other genocides you will see wanton bombings, mobs raging through the streets, sieges denying food and resources to areas. But you will not see reports from bureaucrats complaining that shipping of this load of victims to that camp was inefficient and they should have been sent to a different camp to save costs instead.

Israel is not the Nazis. Still bad though.

Yes.

Luckily, you can just pick your uniform and wear it daily. It’s pretty much what I did. For everyday wear I have like 3 different pants, 3 different sweaters and a bunch of T-Shirts that go with them. So while I personally am basically in uniform daily (and many people wear identical or near identical clothes every day) I’m strictly against society encouraging uniforms in any way shape or form.

For many people wearing a uniform is obligatory at their work (retail and gastronomy workers, construction and maintenance workers, facility staff at larger buildings or events, Any kind of service person that will be seen by the public (e.g bus drivers, cleaners,…). And that is even without counting people who have to follow a strict dress code at work to the point where it might as well be a uniform (white collar office work, e.g).
So overall I dare say a majority of people actually wear uniforms in their professional lives. And even if you aren’t as liberal with your interpretation of “uniform” as I was in the paragraph above (where I considered a hard hat and a high vis vest as a uniform), it is still a significant portion of the population wearing uniforms regardless.

And in a professional context I can see a point to uniforms: They remove individuality and emphasize the belonging to a larger group/organization. This can be helpful in situations where cohesion (e.g construction work, policing, school uniforms etc…) or uniformity of standards (gastronomy, public services) are more important than individual competence/style.

However, in a private context, I object to any kind of uniforms being worn or even worse, any kind of societal encouragement (which always turns into pressure) to wear uniforms. Uniforms are by their nature a limitation on your most basic form of freedom of expression. History has shown that any society that encourages uniformity over individuality in a private context will sooner or later enforce not just clothing standards but other behavioral standards too, usually to the detriment of marginalized groups. (What I’m saying is, it is a short step from “You should wear this.” to “You shouldn’t wear this.” and from there to “You should(n’t) do this” and “You can’t do this.”)

There is rather to many societal norms around what is “correct” or “appropriate” clothing already and I think your phantasy about uniforms comes partially from that pressure. I’d rather a society where no one gives a fuck what you wear, than one that “encourages” dress codes. And uniforms are IMHO a step in the wrong direction.

They both approximate perfect representation close enough. If the difference between one government or the other comes down to variations that are basically explained by the weather being good or bad on voting day, you can’t really claim that the government isn’t representative.

Just because it didn’t represent YOUR opinion, it doesn’t make it less representative. A truly representative government will make decisions that align with 10% of the population 10% of the time. So if 10% of the population want to bomb Canada a perfectly representative government will make it happen every 40 years or so.

What is the hoopla around Palworld?

Huh. Cool stuff. Today I tee-totally learned something new.

For me it was kind of the opposite. I care less about getting shit faced and more about flavours. Getting buzzed is just a pleasant side effect.

Fair enough I can see that.

Also beverages when hosting a party. No need to buy name brand when store brand is half the cost and will get drank the same anyway.

People will drink it, but they may also remember. I have a cousin at whose house I turn tea-totaller, because the beer & wine they offer at parties is literally the cheapest stuff available and it’s fucking horrible.

Specifically for Ukraine there is also the fact that, when your country is under attack, nationalists are the first ones to sign up to fight the invaders. It’s like their whole thing. And the intersection in the Venn diagram of Nazis and nationalists is usually almost a circle.

There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
2. Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
   • It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
   • It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.

So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?

Isn’t that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it’s fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.

Where is the issue?

I’m not down voting you because I disagree with your pick, but because this answer needs to be at the very bottom of the thread.

It’s a trilogy of children’s books, where the first two get a movie each and the last book is split into 2.

[IANAL] In Germany only specific types of hate speech are criminal. These are:

• Use of Nazi symbols and slogans for other than artistic or educational purposes (things like the Swastika, the SS logo, or the Nazi salute, but not more modern versions like the “white power” guesture and similar)
• Direct calls for violence against groups or individuals
• Denying that the Holocaust happened or trivializing it’s extend

Other forms of hate speech might be cause for civil suits or may oblige the platform provider to remove your speech, but do not rise to a criminal offence.

Again: I am not a lawyer.