Yeah, I do agree it’s a fair bit of Apple-bashing. I’ve also learned by reading through other replies in this thread that apparently Apple’s standby mode is very reliable and consumes <1W. It’s apparently also very easy to wake back up.

I can say none of that about my Windows and Linux machines 😅 so that may be where my confusion came from

And then how do you turn it back on?

I’m with you in general - but the original timeline sounds much so much more quacky than what OP posted that in this instance I’m fine with it

Also bought Nova Launcher Prime, but they were apparently acquired in the last year so now Nova is spyware? Anyway, I switched over to Kvaesitso and couldn’t be happier.

https://www.ndr.de/kultur/buehne/theaterberichte/mecklenburg_vorpommern/Sancta-Oper-in-Schwerin-Spiel-mit-katholischen-Symbolen,sancta102.html

look at this if you wanna know what the opera looks like. The fascinating thing to me is that they apparently put on several shows in Schwerin (predominantly protestsnt town in northern Germany) without much fuss.

Reminder: none of the currently available methods of cloud seeding are proven to work.

https://www.wired.com/story/new-gods-weather-rain-cloud-seeding-emirates/

Yes, it all works in theory and in the lab, but in practice we have no idea if cloud seeding “makes it rain” or if it would have rained anyway (to make a long story very short).

So take anything anyone says about “them making it rain” with, like, two grains of salt.

Your bread is sweet. Like, all of it. And not just like, pleasantly so like a French brioche, but almost candy-like. Wonder Bread is one of the worst offenders, coming in at 5g added sugars per 100g: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Wonder-Bread-Classic-White-Sandwich-Bread-Sliced-White-Bread-20-oz/37858875?classType=REGULAR&athbdg=L1600

Edit: as a commenter pointed out, it’s actually closer to 9g/100g, bringing it to soda levels of sugar ಠ_ಠ

I think that might be volcel? as in voluntary celibate?

yes, I know. I meant it more along the lines of whoever comes up with a method for standardizing bias in media puts their own bias in the methodology.

For example, I feel it is a political statement in itself to have a “bias spectrum” from left to unbiased to right. This implies that both left an right are “biases”, while only the center is truly neutral and therefore an arbiter of truth and facts. Enlightened centrism, anyone?

Also, I disagree with parts of their methodology. The headline “Habitual liar and convicted felon to seek US presidency again” would probably be classified as loaded language, whereas “Donald Trump wants to become president again” would be considered more neutral.

I would argue that the former example is, in fact, more truthful than the latter because it doesn’t omit major reasons why this is newsworthy. But since the mbfc is founded on the illusion idea that there is such a thing as truly neutral common ground, it conflates perspective and bias.

thanks for putting it more succinctly than I did!

I actually meant to start a thread one of these days if we can’t ban it! Glad you started the conversation!

My main concern is that by attributing a tactfulness and political rating to them, we’re attaching weight to that. But who does these ratings? Especially when a pop/mainstream mag like the Rolling Stone is classified as “left” the same that explicitly politically left publications like Jacobin are also “left”. That just strikes me as odd.

maybe, but the article really doesn’t justify the headline imo. The article reads more like her statements are coming from a “this worked for me, so try my way if you’re struggling” place rather than a “work for me for free, bitches” place.

not saying that in itself is good, but, you know, also way less infuriating than condemning those entitled youngsters