otter

To add on to what others have already said

and instead calling for a ceasefire or peace.

He didn't do that either though? He attacked those calling for peace/ceasefire

He's attacking everyone, as if he's trying to distract people from each controversy with a different controversy

Being able to lie down with them would be really nice

Ok but who actually doesn't know what a magazine is. They're very much around, you walk by them at most grocery stores.

Not knowing a home phone or cassette I might understand

It could help in a lot of other crises too

During a natural disaster, you could jump back and forth carrying aid in, and the wounded people out. In any time sensitive crisis, you could get people out of harms way. This bit is more complicated, but you could potentially help out during floods and fires, depending on how far the 'teleport other stuff with you' extends to.

A reasonable limit might be 'Only what you could physically carry yourself', in which case you'd need to be a lot more strategic. In that case, you could work on personal strength and be a one-human-rescue-team. When there isn't a disaster, you could probably shuttle light weight (but important) stuff for a fee, then use that money to fund your own charity to do good

As for this prompt, you could probably just teleport away when someone might see you, or teleport to spots that people can't see. So you could do most things that invisibility would allow

@[email protected] could you swap the article and title with the better source?

Lemmy lets you edit titles after the fact. You can leave an explanation for the swap in the post body, and leave the original link there too if you want

Adds negative value by introducing confusion

"If you want to use signal it will cost you"

I think a big part of this story is the Streisand effect. A lot of people are talking about the letter itself, whether it should be accessible for academic reasons, the propaganda aspect, why it was effective back then, etc.

I'm sure there are also people supporting it, both kids being edgy and people being awful. The part that's cloudy is how many are doing that, and how many are talking about the situation itself

Fair question, I think it depends

Sites also have control over the types of ads they show, so sites with harmful ads should be blocked anyways

Have a casio you recommend?

I don't want to comment on entitlement because we're not all in the same place financially.

However it IS important to support good journalism and some nicer models are funding through taxes (public broadcasters) or subscriptions. Subscriptions aren't necessarily individual, and some are for through local libraries and universities.

Good journalism costs money, and it's one of the only things that give us a fighting chance towards fixing the problems around us. If news agencies run out of funding, then they switch to other models, or worse they get sold to some corporation and the coverage is controlled.

What you can do, depending on where you are in life:

• financially: pay for subscriptions, or donate what is reasonable
• whitelist advertisements on good sites
• advocate for public funding and pooled subscriptions

Piracy / filter blockers will be around, so if all else fails just read the stories to learn and grow as a person. You can contribute and advocate someday

More and more news sites are implementing paywalls, and even Reuters has joined the trend. Here are some sources that do not have paywalls

I guess

A big positive for driving over transit is being able to bring extra stuff that you might need

A bag of holding would fix that. 100% prepared, all the time