Hmm, the app on google play store says it collects no information and shares no information with third parties. I'm hopeful about this one.
---actually, looks like a nice general weather app, but doesn't have hurricane tracking features
No, but it has static information, and it's not an app. The website isn't great on mobile either. It's got good information though, and I don't have to submit to location tracking.
I'd like to track hurricanes. All the apps I see collect all kinds of personal data. I just go to NOAA to see the advisories, but wondering if there is something better.
Edit: OS is Android 14 Edit: looking for radar (probably) or some other feature to track hurricanes (I don't know what tools there are besides radar, but if there's something else I'm interested).
IRS enters the chat
Ok, yes, but also with all of the modern advancements in textiles please.
I do this. All. The. Time. Did it today. I tend to notice it and fix before send.
https://youtu.be/bMnyCVyPNu8?si=3rhasMFOU1NBqRrt
This doesn't give you infinite money one quarter at a time.
Yeah, pretty rude if they do that to exclude you specifically, for sure. Im sorry you had colleagues do this to you. Work is much better with good people.
I thought this first too. But then I remembered an interaction where one colleague of mine told another pair who were speaking another language that "secrets don't make friends" or some such. I think it was intended as a jokey way to express that he was uncomfortable with the conversation that he couldn't understand. He also joked that they were probably talking poorly of him. I noticed this person was normalizing controlling the discussion by throwing negative or secretive intentions onto the others' discussions. In reality, they're just friends discussing something in their primary language.
Anyway, long story long, I don't think this colleague would tell us he has a problem with others speaking a language besides English, but then he'd probably follow that up with a bunch of clarifiers that indicate he does in fact have a problem with it.
Thanks for laying it out. I am curious about identifying logical fallacies. But after your description, strawman is exactly how I read the picture. Here's how it goes in my head: there's an unstated assumption that since circumcision in America is so common, that pro choice people are for it. And then they point out that circumcision at birth is against bodily autonomy. So yeah, strawman.
To me, the fact that it's intended as a joke is besides the point, but still supports strawman. Why is it funny? Because you contrast the pro-choice bodily autonomy ascribed to the pregnant woman with the lack of bodily autonomy for the circumcised child. But this juxtaposition ascribes the decision to circumsize the child to the pro choice person. Meaning, they're claiming that this is those people's opinion. And arguing against it. If instead we said that person A is pro-choice and person B circumcised their child then it isn't funny or clever anymore.
Yeah, that looks like it's been sitting out a week.
Older gen alpha are 12-- but all of the references are from current social media influencers. You can't even "officially" access you tube until your account says you're 13.