Yes, the UK was one of those countries who “give more than they get”. Look where they are now. Why? Because the assholes who argued that they “give more than they get” conveniently forgot to mention all the advantages of being in the EU that are not directly money.
Please look further than the arguments of your favorite politician.
No. He was pressured by the venues and particularly Robert Kraft, lifelong friend of Trump, but made the decision himself.
Being under pressure to do something doesn’t relieve you from the responsibility.
It already makes sense if you assume the reason for all of this is simply and purely greed, a human behaviour as old as our civilizations. Greed enabled by capitalism.
Greed blinds people to long term consequences. They just don’t care about anything else than money and power.
This is not new and is not some plan B for environmental crisis. If it were, then the rich wouldn’t be trying to save collapsing birth rates everywhere around the world.
A website doesn’t need to ask you for consent if the cookie is “strictly necessary”. I’m not sure how those anti bot protections work, but I bet they made it fit the definition of a “strictly necessary” cookie.
It doesn’t really matter if they got it right or wrong, as long as it’s consistent. The goal isn’t to know your location, screen res, or cpu core count, it’s to track you across websites.
That doesn’t mean they’re defenseless. This is far from the only long range missiles they have.
Pretty sure nothing is targetted at the two countries. Just that the situation of the USA threatening Denmark would have been condered absurd.
Because income sources like subscriptions and ads are stable, predictable, and that makes shareholders happy.
That’s definitely also a reason why they’re thinking about this system. If people sell them back their old phones or lease them, the second hand market will suffer immensely.
No, we’re just saying it sucks that the women’s world cup is the one that’ll actually get boycotted. No one is saying the boycott should be delayed.
No, human trafficking was very much legal when slavery was the norm. Not all human trafficking, but the one that specifically was about trafficking slaves.
Putting the slightest chance of profits over the conservation of rare books is also pure malice in my book. With a layer of makeup.
I’d say everyone has emotional baggage. I don’t see a single person growing up on this planet that can possibly not have emotional baggage.
The difference is about how you handle it. Emotional baggage and emotional instability are NOT connected.
I don’t think there is a particularly higher amount of people in tech that become insane at the first feel of power. They just often have a higher impact. Just look at the corporate world. The amount of power tripping managers is pretty high as well.
I’m surprised to see lemmy users defending liberticide and authoritarian decisions.
You clearly understood the title, so no, the “reading comprehension” thing wasn’t a dig at you. It was a way to say that you shouldn’t assume the reader is unable to understand the litteral meaning of the title, because that is honestly condescending.
The title does not misrepresent anything, is not dramatizing the situation either. It doesn’t even say “most” or “a sizeable share” or anything that would imply it’s a massively widespread problem. It uses one of the least dramatic quantifier: “often”. Then it says “up to” because… That is the only way to say it? Are you expecting a title to say “up to, but not necessarily as high as”? It’s a title.
Your title alternative is, however, actually dramatizing, making it a bigger problem than it is. “Not all is the same, watch out what you’re buying!” Is the emotion it creates in the first part. Then de-dramatizing with “some”.
The title of this post is as neutral as it can be. It is, literally, stating a fact. The word “up to” is indeed not magical, it is the proper way of indicating an upper bound without dramatizing.
I am shocked this is even a debate. And english isn’t even my first language.
Edit: admittedly it could use “sometimes” instead of “often”, or back up with numbers. But that is hardly dramatizing.
The literal wording of the title is “up to”. You’re criticizing it for cherry picking when it’s… not.
If there’s a contrarian here, it’s certainly not me.
Nice personal attack though!
The title already says “up to” for both the 30% and the sodium content. If the reader understands anything else, that’s a reading comprehension issue.
Spoken like an unconditional fan to a shitty team!
The point wasn’t about exiting, the point was that the money flows in and out of the EU from your country doesn’t matter compared to the advantages of the EU.
In fact, sending money to the EU to support countries that are poorer in the union is beneficial for the countries sending more, because the stronger the union is, the stronger the advantages of being in the union are.
But you’re listening to the talking points of politicians who are against the EU and willing to tell only the parts that make people like you angry at the EU.