Humboldtsnee

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and science therefore changes and new facts and tools and theories and methods are developed.

We are now much better at modeling than we were 50 years ago. Just like how the scientists of the 1970s were miles ahead of the scientists of the 1920s.

"Science got something wrong" is not a valid reason to discount it, because science necessarily gets things wrong. But it gets more right over time.

There's widespread consensus in scientific communities now, and there has been for decades - humans are warming the earth. How much? We're not sure, but it's absolutely demonstrable that we are.

Oh hey, low carbon emissions!

I genuinely cannot believe they tout that in their marketing.

This is a machine to kill people, is anyone worried about its carbon footprint.

(Is this page satire I fell for?)

Texas became a pretty unsafe place for lgbtq people. Austin has historically maintained an open and friendly atmosphere for people of all stripes. But a friendly city in a dangerous state is still a dangerous place to live if you are queer.

The person holding the Glock?

Because a Glock doesn't have a safety lever. It's built into the trigger mechanism.

No, they own a business they work at. Just like workers co-ops. In many ways that's the ideal.

Is using a higher quality ingredient an inefficiency? It seems like it produces a different product.

I mean, the owner is a worker. These are not mutually exclusive roles.

If times are tough, then the owners probably take a smaller salary for their labor, or the workers can decide how to cut costs together through salaries, benefits, reducing costs of manufacturing, or whatever.

Why is that unfortunate?

Genuinely.

It seems like the people doing the labor keeping the profits is a good outcome?

> Unfortunately all the profits became their salary.

Genuinely, why is this unfortunate? It sounds like the workers in the business are getting to keep the value they create, and were more likely to be committed to the business as a result.

Sure, movies portray suppressors as incredible magic devices, but everyone I know thinks this is fiction.

If a New York Times investigation was moderated off of Instagram and the illegal content they reported on was kept up, it's fair play for the NYT to talk about that.

Even my most gun averse friends don't think a silencer makes a gun silent.

It's not. I guarantee you they know the difference. They are choosing to use common vernacular to speak to their audience.

People know what a "silencer" is because that's what it's called in movies and TV. Much fewer people know that it's actually called a "suppressor".

Meet the audience where they are.

My guy, I'm in a gun organization. I'm aware. But most folks call it a clip because that's what movies and videogames have called them for 40 years.

"Throw me a clip!" Or picking up "clips" of ammo in FPS games.

Yes, mag is becoming more common now, but clip was absolutely common.

Why? This seems fine?

What a strawman!

Drugs are a complex and nuanced topic, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be pro drugs and also wary of how Instagram is vetting their drug advertisers.

Black market goods vary in quality and ethics and safety, it's absolutely reasonable to say, "ok, you advertise for these, how are you ensuring safety?"

Complaining that they use a common term that most people know rather than a correct term misunderstands language.

Like, yes, it's a magazine, but colloquially it's a clip. Pop culture has given these objects two names.

It's not a mark of failure to use the term most people are familiar with.

Honestly, looks like a pass from me, as messing with the existing tech tree to introduce new barriers sounds more tedious than fun.

That said, it's going to actual workers who actually do the journalism.

Supporting 404 feels better than sending money to some corp where it gets pocketed by the c suite.

What does that mean in this context?

My podcasts try to sell me stuff 5 times an hour, radio even more. Being nagged to pay for a service you use once a month is basically silence.

That's a profoundly anti science stance. It's easily falsifiable, because organic wheat does not come in contact with glyphosate. And glyphosate is used widely outside of wheat production.

If gluten allergies were actually glyphosate allergies, it would be trivial to demonstrate.

Gluten allergies exist. Gluten is a protein, and people develop allergies to all sorts of proteins.

Right? Cops have been in on crime since cops existed.

That said, the number of cops were need to prevent stochastic thefts like this is far, far too many. Cops are not the answer here, fixing the reasons people turn to crime is.

Crime is down, overall. I don't think we should make laws or changes based on the rare event like this.

But the real prevention is "make living your life possible for everyone". People whose needs are met don't generally go on risky crime sprees like this.

Make housing, healthcare, and food affordable. Give childcare, support education. Crime will plummet.