What stats are you working off of for those 3 decade estimates? Either way the point remains, the sentiment of “we should’ve done X decades ago” doesn’t mean we should now be able to do it instantly, it just means we had the information and knowhow to start working towards it decades ago and we didn’t do it.
Mindset switch to not thinking of that communication as email. At least at my work place it took a while for people to not be overly formal and just go straight to the point, which slows things down. It’s meant to be an instant communication channel after all
I don’t think it’s a system issue, it’s more of a people issue, a lot of people are still using things like teams and slack as if they’re email which bottlenecks everyone, but with the correct training and mindset switch it can be very efficient.
You can get a radio playlist of most songs I believe, it’s a context option, unless you mean a different type of radio playlist, but the feature I mentioned has satisfied that need for me
Yes but by asking to stop it a decade ago naturally the rest of the timeline moves too, so we should’ve had a more aggressive push against oil and gas 2 decades ago or more and transitioned much sooner to green energy.
So weird - what if you’re moving the goal post because you can’t admit that you realise I’m right? There’s no way to argue back against such an argument. Try to not just assume things about people’s subconscious, it can very much be turned back without a possible retort.
You’re being so pedantic, we both know what the article type is trying to do, it’s not aimed at people with the faculties to understand or research if the painting was actually damaged. People see the article as if they actually damaged the painting (because duh throwing soup at a textile material damages it usually)
But the painting is safe, that’s literally the point, relying on the media going for the shock factor while not actually damaging anything. Yet the law is pursuing it as if they did damage the painting, putting them in jail for years, which is not a proportional punishment for the crime of vandalising a painting frame.
Way to miss the point and insult me and my reasoning in the process.
My brother in Christ it’s your analogy
And we never will if we don’t start making progress on it, it’ll always be unfeasible because the powers that be don’t start making changes unless it’s doable within one election cycle. Just Stop Oil isn’t asking for immediate stopping of oil, just moving the deadline to 2030, which means there’s a few years to realistically invest in other forms of energy generation like nuclear, green energy, and other ways.
So imagine in retort of a joke your friend makes you lightly backslap them in the chest or something, these headlines would report it as you punching your friend. Is that accurate? It doesn’t really paint an accurate picture does it?
Only in this case it would be shooting deliberately at the vest of a person covered from head to toe in said vest with a caliber that they’d know couldn’t penetrate it. There was no chance for it to penetrate or go around the protective layer, nor was it intended to be so, so that’s not quite accurate.
Because then it’s a violent protest and you won’t hear the end of it from the conservatives. It’s been p much proven that any action is better than no action, and them sitting outside a single persons home would be inefficient and also potentially harassment.
Also it doesn’t help that reporting around this stuff conveniently misses the parts where all of their actions are easily reversible and non damaging. If anything it shows how corrupt the media empire is
Well maybe not on paper but they did leverage it a lot when questioned
I’m confused, how can a company that’s gained numerous advantages from being non-profit just switch to a for-profit model? Weren’t a lot of the advantages (like access to data and scraping) given with the stipulation that it’s for a non-profit? This sounds like it should be illegal to my brain
It won’t block it yes but it will diminish the amount of people doing it which is the point
Tbh Marx is intentionally questioning definitions and such so it makes sense, simplifying it down to terms we use isn’t very productive in that sense, because what he argues for is the abolishing of “private property” as we know it, but without removing the fruits of labour from its people, so if you and your mates worked for your house you can have it, until the moment you start making a business out of it then it’s less ok.
Read a bit ahead if you may:
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
Even if the UK is not in the EU the GDPR still applies there, just the version it got while it was in the EU tho, no revisions