• 1 Post
  • 202 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023

help-circle

  • here’s a replica i just made using the equal earth projection

    and here’s one using the authagraph projection

    i wanted to make one using the mollweide projection, but i couldn’t find a good blank map with borders to use

    they’re both poor work, but i don’t want to put in the effort to fix them, and it’s pretty funny imagining icelanders getting mad that i put them in north america

    both used blank world map images ripped from wikipedia plus getpaint.net






  • 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.


  • 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?


  • “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.




  • No, not at all. You can easily view the edit history of all Wiktionary pages – 2 years ago, someone put the definitions in the order they are now for a specific reason. This person thinks it should be the other way around, so if they want to change it it’d be best to make a discussion about it. That’s the best way to get a community consensus on it. Wiktionary is a collaborative effort, people have different opinions on the specifics of a page, that’s why discussions exist and are the go-to for settling differences in views.


  • Whether a term is characteristic of a certain dialect or region isn’t generally considered all that much when it comes to order on Wiktionary, unless it’s an “obscure” dialect. I contribute a lot to Wiktionary (mainly for languages other than Modern English though) and there are few rules on the specific the order of definitions, it’s mostly just common definitions above uncommon definitions (but this isn’t even a hard rule).

    Editing it to change the order for your reason specifically might be considered vandalism, as it’s typical and allowed for entries to be like this and it’s common for little disputes like that to cause editing wars (although that’s admittedly far more common on Wikipedia, since many Wiktionary contributors are actually linguists and are less controversial).

    That being said, someone actually did intentionally move the “gang member” definition above the other one, so there’s clearly some sort of difference in opinion.

    If you want it changed, the course of action you should take is starting a discussion about it. It’s a good way to get a community consensus.





  • force@lemmy.worldtomovies@lemm.eeAnyone else?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Divorce means you possibly get murdered, Walter’s a psychopathic drug kingpin working with the cartel who, for all she knows, has probably gotten a lot of people killed already.

    Divorce is also usually a long and convoluted process in the US, I assume it is in NM too. At the very least it would have put some eyes on them and made other people (including her DEA AGENT BROTHER) confused and possibly looking for answers as to what happened suddenly, especially right after they just had their 2nd kid and are seemingly happy together despite Walt’s cancer diagnosis. At that point she didn’t want Walt getting arrested (possibly because that would also completely shake up her own life), she was just waiting for him to die of his terminal illness so it’d all be over soon.

    It’s always crazy to me when someone suggests that a person stuck in a dangerous relationship just breaks up/divorces/leaves. That’s not how it works.

    Her divorcing Walt would just be completely illogical and serve no purpose other than introducing a whole lot of new worries and complications in her life. As far as she was concerned, Walt would die of cancer in a few months and that’d be that. She didn’t want to bring more risk into it than there already was.