this is an amazing study in how to go carefully, point-by-point, through something, and refute none of it.
There might be something on the wiki, in the meantime how I decide is:
- if it's a single expanse of poured concrete it's Concrete
- if there is dirt / grass between two parallel tracks of concrete (whether or not the tracks have any joins) it's Concrete Lanes
- if it's just concrete but there are seams where it's been poured separately, Concrete Slabs
And if it's anything else I skip.
Existing relationship (boss) might not be leading with compersion π
mm, delicious bait! π go on then, which proxy war does the US have "actual moral footing" to get behind?
"wuhan virus" opinion discarded
good news!
also another sad example of how arbitrary the word "natural" is. LSD derives from the (very "natural") ergot fungus, MDMA from sassafras - but I guess they're not included because [mumbles something about test tubes]
it's the only place I know where it's common to have your whole battery pack swapped out, much quicker than recharging a battery, and leaves the difficult job of battery maintenance up to professionals
yes, using bigoted terminology throughout tech is a great example of the cyberpunk DYSTOPIA that fiction warned us about.
meanwhile, in the political side of punk, we're antiracist and finding new words is the least we can do
I was going to make this post myself, thank you π
"customer" instead of "passenger" on public transit. implies the kind of ludicrous thinking that public services "lose money"
counterargument: TLDs have been a corporate-minded, US-centric joke since they were invented, the joke got even worse when ICANN wouldn't hand over authority to the UN, worse still with the naked cash grab / branding exercise that was gTLDS (remember the shakedown that was .xxx and .sucks?) and now that .amazon belongs to a creepy oligarch's predatory monopoly instead of the countries containing the ancient giant life-giving rainforest of the same name they may as well just change all TLDs to .clown and let DNS die in peace
carbrained bullshit from the guardian as usual. do they wanna cite statistics or even a source on "many motorists, however, resent the changes"? of course not, evidence-free bothsidesing of vehicular deaths it is