The lacy top makes it a lot less ambiguous. Also, the ties in OPs image look like spidey swinging towards you while the ones in your link really do not.

This shirt looks old, but I’ve never seen it before. Reddit has let me down again. Thanks Lemmy!

Canada simply can’t afford to match America in conventional warfare. America has a more powerful military than the next 5 countries combined, and Canada isn’t one of those. Unconventional warfare, on the other hand. I can’t think of anything stupider than starting an unconventional war with a neighboring country with an incredibly long, weakly inhabited, border and a population that looks and sounds mostly like your own citizens. If even 1% of Canadians had a problem with that, there would be half a million insurgents that couldn’t be easily identified.

Lol this is the typical takeaway. A better result would be to not engage in illegal practices and then it doesn’t matter if you put it in writing, but that’s not how you become a billionaire.

I think you can attribute that to the people MS bought DOS from. Don’t ask me their names, because…

This is me to a large degree. Give me a cue and a whole encyclopedia is at your fingertips. Just say think of something and I’m at a loss.

Atomic transmutation is never easy, and the only thing that really scales is a nuclear reactor. And not just any nuclear reactor will do - breeder reactors are the only ones that make it in any quantity. If you want to make this using a cyclotron or with centrifuges, a lot of the diagnoses and treatments we take for granted today will be almost completely inaccessible and only available to the very wealthy.

I generally agree, given that geothermal and solar keep getting cheaper, and now cost less than nuclear or are at least competitive, but nuclear plants do more than just provide energy. Where do you think medical isotopes come from?

So the boycott was pointless, as indicated. I also saw people saying they were going to boycott InBev, and they clearly had an impact for some period of time, along with the Bud Light boycotters, yet here we are. Also, you mentioned InBev, not Bud Light.

InBev stock is up 1.6% over the last year. If you’d bought stocks this January, you would have made about 30% profit.

First, I love how you got upvotes for saying, “I didn’t bother even trying to find any evidence before posting.” But that’s not on you.

Second, murders are usually followed up on in the developed world, at least to some degree.

Here’s a BBC article. 20% in the UK (I found other regions with higher amounts, but I’m okay with this one). Note also that we are talking about something that is incredibly unlikely. 30,000 deaths worldwide per year of women in relationships by their partners. Assuming half of adult women worldwide are in relationships and noting there are about 6 billion adults gives 1.5 billion women in relationships. Note that the country with the highest rate of singles for both sexes is at 25%, so this is pretty conservative. That is a 2 in a million chance per year. Assuming women are in relationships for 60 years because, why not, puts your risk at 120 in a million of being killed by a partner over your lifetime. That is about 1.2 in 10,000, which is about 10 times as likely as dying from general anesthetic.

So now that we’ve determined that 1.2 in 10,000 men are killing their partners, and I will happily acknowledge that domestic violence is much more prevalent as long as you acknowledge that depending on region, 40% of victims of spousal violence are men (279000÷(432000+279000)), why would we waste our time targeting men for awareness of spousal violence when most men aren’t doing it and a significant part of the people who are doing it aren’t men?

So we have a problem that is done by a tiny minority of one demographic, and a third as many of the population that aren’t part of that demographic, yet you insist that demographic is the key factor in the problem at hand, and I’m supposed to believe I, who haven’t committed this act, am a part of the problem.

If you want to keep believing that the core issue is that men (or generally people with high testosterone) tend to be more violent, is the key issue, and not that there are people of either gender who wish to treat others as objects and believe their feelings are more important than other people’s well-being, well, who am I to stop you? But you might find it easier to teach people that other people have agency and as many rights as them than you will trying to teach men that being a man is a problem. And you might reach 33% more people at risk of engaging in spousal violence than if you just look at men.

As for the whataboutism, I’m speaking of spousal violence, in which you and the person in the article seem to believe only happens in one direction in any significant amount.

While studiously ignoring 25% of the problem. Gotcha.

Well, I guess if only one in four of these “always men” are women, that doesn’t count.

That’s a very hyperbolic statement, and studies suggest about a quarter of spousal murders are committed by women. Closer to 3 in 8 in America.

Afraid not.

One of the definitions of conservative is cautious or restrained. How is not spending money in a risky way not conservative? How is making choices based on evidence from other experiences not conservative? How is not spending money and letting physical and social structures that are serving you well decay conservative?

As someone who has used the term before.

Social liberal: I think you should be able to do whatever you want in your personal life, even if it harms yourself. I’m willing to negotiate with harming consenting adults while recognizing the possibility, even likelihood, of an imbalance of power making it difficult to properly give consent, or for it to be recognized by the public at large, e.g., maybe Amazon workers aren’t really okay with peeing in bottles because they don’t have enough time or facilities for bathroom breaks, just because they accepted the job. Doing things that harm those you have guardianship over is not acceptable because they are not in a position to give consent.

Fiscal conservative: I want money in the public trust to be spent effectively. This doesn’t mean I want less taxes, I’m in fact okay with more. A city near me has 30% of its budget dedicated to police services, yet we have some of the highest violent crime in Canada. The simple fact is, a lot of crime is driven by poverty and lack of opportunity. So why are we paying to catch and jail poor people with no skills who are trying to survive and not paying for skills training, robust childhood education, and at least minimal supports so people don’t have to be desperate enough to risk their lives and mine so they can survive? It doesn’t make sense and there’s no indication it’s working. FYI, school meal programs tend to help the local economy to the tune of about $7 for every $1 you spend on them. That sounds terribly fiscally responsible to me…

Chickens are surprisingly effective as far as meat animals go.

Yeah, I don’t see us all moving into cities, although many people already have. I also don’t think we need to have one giant city - those numbers were given to show how little actual living space people need, keeping in mind that Paris doesn’t seem to be viewed as somewhere undesirable to live, and still has room for beauty and not just urban utilitarianism.

On the flip side, many people who move to the city do so for work. I hope we see less of that, where things can be more decentralized so people who like a less urban environment can still effectively contribute to society and the economy without having to stifle their personal living preferences. I’d also like to see less cost-efficient but more space-efficient growing conditions for agriculture so more land can be returned to a natural state while still supporting the populations we have. Both vertical farming and vertical living can contribute to that. And I absolutely realize that livestock tend to be both less cost- and space-efficient, especially if it’s humane.