All true, but that doesn’t disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.
All true, but that doesn’t disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.
Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn’t categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.
To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of inconclusive or null results doesn’t mean there is categorically no link – it could equally mean that more research is needed.
That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.
It was bad. Not sure it was quite as terrible as #3, but definitely bad.
Thanks, I’m aware, but that wasn’t my question.
This new extension doesn’t seem to add support for app indicators… so what is it for?
I’m confused
Will GNOME’s new Status Icons ad-on support all of the same tray icon that Ubuntu’s kStatus/AppIndicator extension does?
I haven’t been able to test it to find out for sure, but it doesn’t appear to support App Indicators, which is the most commonly-used tray icon spec on Linux…
So … If this new extension doesn’t add tray icons/menus for apps like Zoom, what’s the point of it? What features does it add over stock Gnome?
30 is way too many. Ideally, you want about 4-5 parties in order to maintain a healthy democracy without getting bogged down.
Either way, the two party corporate duopoly of the US ain’t it.
As someone who has lived in Thailand, I get why Thais were pissed. The hotel, the taxi, the public transport all look like they’re from 30 years ago. Yes, you do still find run-down buildings and tuk-tuks in Bangkok today, but it’s generally a lot more developed and modern than westerners expect on first arrival. Instead of showing the reality, the creators of this ad went out of their way to portray an outdated caricature.
To an outsider it might seem like nitpicking, but Thais are fed up with being presented this way to an international audience.
Being profoundly ignorant on a topic has never stopped him from tweeting about it.
Because he is the owner of the very platform that helped to stir up the recent neofascist riots in the UK that led to POC being attacked and terrorized and properties looted and burned. His tweets are seen by millions of people, and greatly contribute towards online extremism and polarization.
Yup, sorry you’re right - it was World News, not News.
I’m not necessarily fully agreeing with OP’s thesis that MBFC is a pro-Zionist project, but something is very much amiss if UNWatch is considered to be a “highly credible” source.
I myself debunked a highly flawed and biased article from UNWatch that was posted to News@Lemmy.world* last month. The post was removed by the moderator (@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world) after being determined as disinformation. (I can’t link to it, since it has been removed, but if you want to see the details of my critique, check out this screenshot of my comment)
Having seen that first hand, I would absolutely say that MBFC’s credibility rating system is, at the very least, questionable.
The idea that propaganda cannot be propaganda if it is delivered in a dry, objective tone is nonsensical.
The Israel/Palestine conflict is a great example of this - especially in the US. Anyone who has closely watched the mainstream news media cover the situation in Gaza, or the college protests that sprung up as a result, has witnessed consent for Israel’s war being manufactured in front of their very eyes, along with the vilification of anyone who stands opposed to it. The fact that it is delivered by seemingly professional journalists in a somber, even tone has no bearing whatsoever on how accurately it describes reality.
I disagree – I think there is definitely room for this more impassioned/personal style of reporting as long as the facts being reported are accurate, especially with this conflict in particular. After all, the headline is not misleading – people literally attacked military bases in defense of the right of IDF soldiers to rape and torture Palestinian detainees with impunity. That happened.
If you prefer the more dispassionate, passive-voice-using, equivocating language about what is going on in Israel/Palestine right now, you have almost the entire rest of the Western news media to choose from.
No sick burn was intended.
Regardless of whether you think an emotive or a dispassionate tone is more appropriate for this particular story, the facts contained in both articles remain the same, do they not?
Perhaps you would prefer CBS News?
Archuleta himself, though, has a history of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. He previously blamed LGBTQ+ individuals for the Club Q shooting and said that queer people are “groomers” – or child sex abusers – a negative stereotype that has been used to justify hatred and discrimination.
Bruh.
I’ve defended lemmy.ml in the past when people have blamed the entire instance for the actions of a solitary, overzealous moderator, but this genuinely concerns me:
This must have been action taken at the instance admin level, considering all those communities have different moderators.
Is there any way to probe the modlog to see which account it was?
Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men “were men”) have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.