I think Apple users have issues with Webm & Webp? But the issue here is using Apple products in the first place. Losing 90% of basic functionality is what you expect when using one of those.
is it that difficult to look up the answer from a reliable source?
With the current state of search engines and their content (almost completely unrelated garbage and shitty blogs make in like 3 minutes with 1/4 of the content poorly copy-pasted out of context from stackoverflow and most of the rest being pop-ups and ads), YES
Man Biden is really trying to lose the upcoming election isn't he. A year ago I would not have predicted that he would fuck up such an easy reelection this badly, but here we are. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory I guess.
Apparently Biden has always been this shitty when it comes to Palestine. Some things children just never grow out of it seems.
if Kagi were open source sure, but it's $10 a month and the CEO is kind of an asshole. And a generative-AI-bro (please don't make me call them GAI-bros)
I constantly see angry mobs of people decrying "woke", "critical race theory", ""grooming"", and whatever other nonsense they made up this week. They march around with guns, constantly appending lib as a prefix to any word they can use to denigrate. They actively plot violence and spew hatred in the open....
Idk man conservatives in recent history have a pretty consistent track record of assassinations and assassination attemps on liberal and leftist politicians in the US based on their politics. Tommy Burks was outright killed by his Republican opponent less than a month before the election (Burks was one of the most conservative Democrats at the time, but he was certainly killed by a lot more conservative Republican), Clementa Pinckney (targetted in a white supremacist shooting at a primarily black church that he was the pastor of), Gabby Giffords (shot in the head by an anti-government right-wing conspiracy theory consumer).
When Republican politicians are killed now, it's pretty much only by personal enemies/drama that is unrelated to liberal or leftist politics, or by schizophrenic/criminally insane people who also weren't doing it over politics. Like Linda Collins (her friend killed her after being confronted for stealing money), Mike McLelland (he was killed by a former lawyer who's theft case he prosecuted). Hell, even Ronald Reagan was shot over an actress, not over the guy's personal political views. Ironically, Republican John Roll was killed by the right-wing terrorist targetting Gabby Giffords, he was caught in the cross-fire. I don't think there's even an in-office conservative Republican politician that was assassinated by a Democratic rival this century, or even a single instance of a conservative Republican being assassinated by a liberal over politics recently.
I want you to think of how frequently you hear of terrorist attacks which were committed in the name of white supremacy, christian nationalism, dicrimination against LGBT, or some other far-right bullshit, and then think of how frequently you hear of terrorist attacks committed in the name of progressive beliefs like, oh idk universal healthcare and better public transport. it's gotta be at least like a 20 to 1 ratio, and that's me being conservative with the amount of conservative attacks.
“There is no future without electrification. But just electrification will not get us there,”
Daniel Posen is an associate professor in U of T’s department of civil and mineral engineering, and the Canada Research Chair in system-scale environmental impacts of energy and transport technologies. He agrees electrification is vital. But relying solely on electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions from transportation may not be enough, especially if we want to do it in time to stop a catastrophic two-degree rise in global temperatures.
The article you link contradicts you, it clearly suggests that adoption of EVs reduce carbon emissions, but we still need to do more (e.g. ACTUALLY HAVE PUBLIC TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE) to prevent a climate catastrophe.
So I take it you're against the government subsidizing science research in general? "The government shouldn't fund new technology" is a stupid and destructive position. We'd be living in the 1800s if it were up to solely the capitalistic market. I mean, the first broadly effective antibiotics that are responsible for saving probably hundreds of millions of lives at least only exist because of people working in government-funded labs, under government-funded universities, for the government. Why should the environment be treated like it doesn't matter to our civilization?
[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]
Men can be terrible but it's not that likely to encounter rapists and killers.
It is EXTREMELY likely to encounter a man who is willing to sexually assault or rape you given the chance with no consequences if you're a woman. It's ignorant of the differences in experience between being a man and being a woman to think that it's rare to encounter men who may harm you and that it's irrational to not give men the benefit of the doubt. Misogynistic rape culture is rampant, and it's very rare for men to understand that, more common is victim blaming or telling women they're irrational for being extremely cautious around every man they meet.
"Men can be terrible" is an understatement. Most women face sexual harassment on a regular basis by men who otherwise seem like normal and functioning members of society, and most women have been sexually assaulted. Just being a woman carries a massive risk on its own. Often times rape is even from people the victim knows well. Rapists don't look or act a certain way, they don't have to seem creepy, most rapists are average dudes like anyone else. There is no method to differentiate non-sexually aggressive men from the extremely common sexually aggressive men, and the extremely low risk of being caught after committing the crime makes it significantly more dangerous, because a lot of people only don't commit crimes because they know they'd face consequences.
6.5% of women reported unwanted sexual contact as their first sexual experience... On average, a girl’s forced sexual initiation was 15.6 years old.
JAMA Internal Medicine, "Association Between Forced Sexual Initiation and Health Outcomes Among US Women", 2019
When you're out in public, or at a highschool reunion, or even at a family gathering, you're likely surrounded by at least one rapist or future rapist. A meta-analysis on unreported rape, in fact, states this:
Studies of unreported rape, mainly on college samples, indicate that from 6% to 14.9% of men report acts that meet legal definitions for rape or attempted rape
Lisak, D., & Miller, P. M. (2002)
And this study from 2014 suggests that 1/3 of white college-aged men would rape a woman if there were no consequences, despite only 13.6% agreeing they would when explicitly pointing out that it's rape. Studies like this also make it obvious that a large portion of men don't think rape is rape.
Various other studies suggest a similar or higher amount of men would try to pressure a woman into having sex if she said no, including by getting her under the influence of drugs/alcohol or by attemtping to manipulate her with verbal abuse. Which, obviously, is rape.
And keep in mind, this is only the portion that voluntarily said they would. The actual number is likely higher considering that people tend to undersell "embarassing" behaviours or thoughts, like drug abuse and desire to rape, even on studies which aren't face-to-face.
That's why being alone with a random man is a much higher risk than being alone with a bear to most women.
Frankly, sexual assault has nothing to do with attraction.
You're bringing up attraction – it's irrelevant and not something I talked about.
Everyone knows how serious sexual assault is. It's ridiculous to make an entire gender out to be evil.
You're the one interpreting it as "men are evil", probably intentionally. "Would you rather be stuck alone with a random man or a black bear" is not a question of "are all men scarier than bears", it's "are you more afraid of what a randomly chosen man would do to you if alone with you in the woods with no consequences for his actions than you are of what a bear would do to you". You seem to be taking personal offense to the observation that a large portion of men are willing to make a woman suffer an extreme amount given the chance with no consequences.
The fact of the matter is, despite not all men being a threat, there's enough of sexually aggressive men that are a threat and usually not much way to separate the "willing to do bad things" men from the "not willing to do bad things" men, that women have to see most men as a potential threat in order to avoid getting raped. I know, it sucks that the bad apples are ruining it for you or whatever, but you're here basically getting mad at women for expressing that they don't feel safe alone at the mercy of another man they don't know.
Man what in the hell are you talking about? Is this some conservative troll I'm not seeing? Are you just throwing out a non-sequitur to do some sort of woman-blaming or distraction?
Also 20% to 40% of women who report being penetratively raped were raped by strangers. And when women are sexually assaulted by a stranger, more than 54% don't report it, according to the NCJRS. So you can't just act like women are almost exclusively sexually assaulted by people close to them. Regardless it's not very relevant in a scenario where there are no legal/societal consequences for committing rape.
You're usually safe with sharks in general. It's your problem if you think sharks are some mega-dangerous animal that terrorizes humanity. I wouldn't entrust a kid, or even a pet for that matter, to a stranger regardless of gender.
Your statistic isn't even about women. It's about mothers. And the study states obvious common contributing factors to it:
The mothers were often poor, socially isolated, full-time caregivers, who were victims of domestic violence or had other relationship problems. Disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and primary responsibility for the children were common.
It has nothing to do with "daycare workers". It has to do with the fact that on average being more disadvantaged and marginalized makes mothers more likely to harm their children. And, indeed, while you're not likely to be killed by your mom, a large chunk of the population does face abuse, from parents regardless of gender (but possibly more by women). I would be scared to be the child of a majority of parents, most parents are abusive even if it's not legally documented as abuse. How you think that's relevant to most women experiencing sexual violence and rape culture being prevalent in society is beyond me though.
"A couple of bad examples" is at minimum 1/3 of men my guy. Most women with life experience are not going to take that gamble. In 2021, 400-500 children in the entire US die annually due to abuse from their mothers. It is not at all comparable.
It is a gamble with a chance of at least 31%. It is a random man, picked from anywhere in our God given country. It is not "very specific to statistical contexts", you likely meet multiple rapists every day without knowing. It's not like all the rapists are huddled up in Mobile, Alabama. In the city, in the suburbs, wherever you meet people, you will meet people who are willing to sexually assault a woman regularly.
That's what you don't understand by not being a woman or by not knowing the experiences of women. You don't know how much you are required to fear the men around you to survive.
And yet women run into more than 3 men every day and remain unmolested.
All of these crimes happened to someone they planned in their life over time. Not randomly at the gas station.
Lmao this is delusional. I literally gave you the numbers, plenty of women are raped by strangers.
They are crimes of personal hate that hurt the entire family.
Actual delusion
It's not like men are attacking women on sight (1 out of 3 times).
And that means the large amount of men that commit rape and say they'd commit rape given no consequences are just non-existent? Do you have to rape a woman every time you go outside to be a rapist or something?
There are a small percentage of sickos that might attack a women in the woods.
And you base this on..? Are you gonna tell that to the large amount of women in college that get raped by people they barely no because there's very low likelihood of consequences? That rape doesn't happen often because you don't see it? That the women reporting rape are in a conspiracy against you?
You are lying to yourself by actually stating that women only get raped by people they've been close to for years. And you're lying to yourself if you think someone raping an acquaintance somehow makes them less likely to rape a stranger if they can get away with it.
Not 31%. This is all of a course obvious unless you want a frame statistics to spread hate
It's not my fault if you want to ignore science and reality. It doesn't even have to be 31% – even if it were only 10%, which yes over 10% of young men OUTRIGHT ADMIT that they would rape a woman given a situation with no legal consequences.
Men aren't rapists. But an alarmingly high – at least single-digit percentage – of men have already committed sexual assault, and a double-digit amount would if they could. Papers on the matter mostly conclude that the ratio of sexual assault victims to perpetrators is around 3:1, which means the amount of perpetrators is almost certainly double-digit considering the amount of women to be sexually assaulted is well over 1/3. 25% of college-aged men specifically admit to committing sexual assault, while 8% admit to committing rape or attempted rape, according to the NIAAA. That is bad news for a woman.
All I mean is that statistic is not relevant here. One in three men commit sexual assault over the course of their lives. That doesn't mean it's a third chance someone's going to do it randomly to a women in the woods.
Would you feel comfortable leaving your kid with someone who raped a child? Or someone who has said they would rape a child if there were no consequences? Or even being around a pedophile as a kid? Why do you think a woman would take their chances with sexually aggressive men? Because rapists are likely to be repeat offenders, on average rapists commit more than 1 rape and have more than 1 victim. "1 in 3 men are rapists or want to rape, but that doesn't mean all of those rapists or aspiring rapists will want to rape you specifically when there's nobody else around and no legal consequences for their actions" is a hard sell to women, just like "pedophiles don't always reoffend" is a hard sell to parents. Obviously pedophiles aren't the same as men willing to rape women, but I feel that analogy makes it a lot easier for men to understand the feeling – a woman doesn't want to be stuck with a stranger who has admitted they would commit rape if there were no consequences, or an actual recent rapist for that matter.
The Verge published this spam article about the "best printers of 2024" to demonstrate how terrible Google's search results are. It now appears as the top non-sponsored post if you search "best printer" on Google....
The Red Scare happened because it threatened the American ruling class, and America wasn't occupied by Nazis in WW2 so they didn't have the experience of being liberated by mostly leftist rebels. Immediately after WW2, communists and socialists were seen as liberators who freed various countries from Nazi rule, even in the UK where Winston Churchill lost re-election partly due to him going all-in on anti-communism (which the people didn't like). As a result, Europeans were a lot friendlier to communism and were more open to adopting socialist policies. The US was both the leading capitalist power AND it was very distanced/separated from the oppression and rebellion against the Nazis, so they just saw communists as a threat.
man your bones must be turning into dust. shouldn't you be chatting with your friends at the retirement home by now instead of being on lemmy, grandpa? smh geezers
snake case for everything, pascal case for struct/enum/class/trait names, and screaming snake case for constexpr identifiers is the superior method of naming. FUCK camel case, java/c# naming conventions are dumb and stupid and cringe, rust did it right
i'm in pain every time i use scala/f# or something and i have to actually interact with those HEATHEN java/c#-conformist identifiers
goddamnit ( fedia.io )
Mom Burn ( lemmy.world )
We have to stop ignoring AI’s hallucination problem ( www.theverge.com )
Biden plans to send $1bn arms shipment to Israel ( www.bbc.com )
What it's like to be a developer in 2024 ( sopuli.xyz )
Source
How come liberals dont hate conservatives the way conservatives hate liberals
I constantly see angry mobs of people decrying "woke", "critical race theory", ""grooming"", and whatever other nonsense they made up this week. They march around with guns, constantly appending lib as a prefix to any word they can use to denigrate. They actively plot violence and spew hatred in the open....
Republicans are pulling out all the stops to reverse EV adoption ( www.theverge.com )
[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]
The Verge shows how Google search is useless ( www.theverge.com )
The Verge published this spam article about the "best printers of 2024" to demonstrate how terrible Google's search results are. It now appears as the top non-sponsored post if you search "best printer" on Google....
Rabbit R1 AI box revealed to just be an Android app ( arstechnica.com )
Rabbit R1 AI box is actually an Android app in a limited $200 box, running on AOSP without Google Play....
rule conditions ( lemmy.blahaj.zone )
Who trespasses on the King's land? ( lemmy.world )
Reddit if full of bots: thread reposted exactly the same, comment by comment, 10 months later ( i.imgur.com )
For the threads with the older one on the left: https://lemmy.world/post/14859950...
Getting up to speed ( lemmy.world )
codeStyle ( lemmy.world )