Just another example of studios checking as many diversity boxes as possible as a substitute for good acting. I applaud diverse casts, especially since that's always been a big part of Star Trek, but when that's the only strong quality of your casting you've made a mistake somewhere. ST:D went so far as to invent new oppressed minorities (prey species) just so they could include one of them and highlight the crew's Diversity^TM. It really felt like every character was their label first and their character second.
Oh so you have seen it and fully understand it then. Got it. Thanks for your contribution.
Alfalfa Meal and Coffee Grounds - can only be used in moderation due to their high nitrogen content which would fuck up waterways way more than salt.
Beet Juice - not nearly as effective as salt
Grape Skin - still in testing, no where near close to market, unknown ecological impacts
Brine - has the same problem as salt because that's essentially what it is
Manual removal - are you fucking kidding me?
Salt is the best we have, and the alternatives aren't just less economical, they're also just plain unfeasible.
I can kinda get it not being "murderous". When civilians are killed while in the middle of a war, it's not considered murder, it's considered a war crime. It's a technicality, but that's how words work.
But I'm not sure how you can say it isn't brutal. Of course it's brutal.
I'm a Nintendo fanboy. I totally get the criticism, most of it is valid. The problem is that people then use things like their pricing, poor hardware, and constant use of the same IPs and extend that into a broad claim of "Nintendo Sucks"; all while completely dismissing the only thing that really matters:
They make fun games.
At the end of the day, despite their technical flaws, if I had to pick ONE game company to play exclusively for the rest of my life, it'd be Nintendo, there's not even a close second for me. Despite all the complaints, if they come out with a new Zelda or Mario game, it's more likely than not to be an absolute 10/10 game. Why? Because again, they make fun games.
How many companies have pushed out some 4k, 120fps, hyper-realistic graphic style game, only to have completely flat gameplay? Nintendo seems to be the only company that realizes that first and foremost, they are a game company. Not a hardware company, or a graphics company, or some new metaverse VR BS company, but a game company.
Who in the fuck would want to play single player only Splatoon?
Are you saying that none of the fun will be in this game?
Here's what you can do in the next 5 minutes to stop your Stage 3 Lung Cancer!
That's pretty much the same thing this headline is saying. We are deep in it now, maybe not the absolute worst case it could be, but definitely not good. And 12 months is not nearly enough time to deal with the problem, so much so that it's laughable to even suggest it could be. The only solution will be long, hard, expensive, and require a LOT of pain and sacrifice. Plus, there's no guarantees it will even work. It may just be too late at this point.
So because something bad happened and we're all emotional, we're supposed to ignore critical thinking and just go along with whatever people say that makes them feel better about the situation, regardless of if it's correct or not? There's a sort of merit in that I suppose, but it's not for me.
"Even though the artificially saturated color was known at the time amongst planetary scientists — and the images were released with captions explaining it — that distinction had become lost over time."
Things like this are why I have a bit of a bone to pick with astrophotography. Those breathtaking images of nebula or gas clouds? Manipulated to the point they might as well be fake.
"This is what the nebula would look like if we could see IR and if we made all the different elements like Hydrogen and Nitrogen glow in different neon colors to distinguish them"
Cool, so not actually at all what the nebula looks like. Got it.
But that's what the public sees, and most people think that if you had a powerful enough telescope, you'd see all these amazing colors and details. But that's not really the case at all.
The rules that weren't listed anywhere? The rules that even experts who were consulted were unaware of? The rules that there wasn't even a place on the form to be able to follow?
You mean those rules?
She did follow the rules on the APPLICATION, because this requirement wasn't actually listed on the APPLICATION, nor was there even a place on the APPLICATION to list it. This is an archaic law that was not common knowledge that was dug up after the fact specifically to bar her from running.
Imagine filing your taxes, only to have them rejected because you never told the IRS your favorite type of soup.
Except there's no place on candidate forms to put it, it's not written on any of the lists of candidates requirements, and has never been recently enforced. She wasn't hiding her name, she literally didn't know she needed to because it wasn't listed anywhere. It's like if you ran for office but got rejected at the last minute because you didn't disclose all your addresses from the last 15 years, despite there not being an official place to actually do that.
I mean, yes? Exactly? Words matter. The right words matter. Just because a group is doing something negative does not mean every negative word applies to them. That's small brain thinking.
When you use the right words to describe a horrible action, it's accusation and condemnation. When you use the wrong words, it just becomes name calling.
If we're being technical, then it's the one you crossed out that says
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
Because CBC is using murder as a legal definition, not common parlance, and it doesn't fit the legal definition of murder. But I get it, you don't want technicalities.
Cops don't investigate crimes
They just take shots in the dark.
90s
teenagers
Yea, thats Gen X. Majority of millennials weren't teens in the 90's
That's a pretty unfeasible request. Sure, maybe big resalers might keep something like that, but the average consumer? I keep my receipts for maybe a year on big purchases unless there's something like a warranty I need it for. And I get the feeling that's already more than most folks would do.
If you are insisting on a first purchase receipt before buying something used, you are essentially saying you'll almost never buy something used. The odds someone would even still have it, let alone go through the hassle of providing it to you, are extremely low. Why would they do that when they could just sell to a less difficult customer who doesn't care?