tryptaminev

You develop your own database application or use a professional file system with customizeable attributes.

Then you end up cursing yourself because half the time you didn't fill in any of the entries that would actually help you find it again and you named it "funny comic cheetos"

You can only push so much nitrogen and phosphor into the biological cycle w.o. having grave side effects. Acidification, erosion of soil microbiomes, eutrophication of water bodies...

The current amount of fertilizers used are killing the environment and through this reducing crop yields.

The difference being that this is about protecting sensitive data like trade secrets, in a complex ecosystem that is impossible to fully oversee. Many western governments have banned Huawei from 5g network components for the same reason and that is solid reasoning.

But with TikTok it is a very different story. Nobody needs to use it. People are using it voluntarily. In regards to steering people to bad content through its algorithm, it is no different from Facebook or Instagram. The argument @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world made is valid.

It is not about preventing foreign or private influence that his harmful to the citizens. It is about controling that influence.

Well, Columbus, Galilei, Kepler & co. challenged what was considered "established fact" about the shape and place of the earth in their times.

It is not wrong to challenge what is considered "established facts". Problem is when you discard results that are going against your preoposition. I wouldn't consider flat earthers to be particular religious as a crowd though. At least in my country they mostl come from the esoteric scene, where you get a mixed bowl of esoteric nonsene, conspiracy theories, and fascist ideology.

The issue with our impact on the nitrogen cycle is that it is exceeding the planetary boundaries significantly. Same for Phosphor https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

However if we look at the countries with the highest use of chemical fertilizers per Capita it is also countries with industrialized agriculture that focus on meat production or cash crops.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fertilizer-per-capita

We use about half of global agricultural lands for animal feed. So the nitrogen fertilizers are not needed to sustain nutrition. They are needed to sustain the meat overconsumption in wealthy countries.

We can make nitrogen fertilizers just fine with the Haber Bosch process and Hydrogen electrolysis. All you need for that is water, air and electricity.

Also crop yields are perfectly suitable to feed all of the global population without using fertilizers. It just requires farmin techniques, that are not suitable for industrial farming for profit maximising companies. On the contrary the current way of industrial farming destroys the yields as it erodes soils physically, chemically and biologically. If we continue farming like this for another century or two we will face severe global starvation.

It is all the more reason to switch both in the use of fossil fuels and the way of current agriculture sooner rather than later.

Isnt the federations key idea to avoid collapse if any single instance it failing? This sounds like the system has become too centralized around lemmy.world

This is obviously absurd. If choosing from the legal options in an election is being part of a "conspiracy" then the whole system is already failed and you yourself are a conspirator for not doing anything about it.

And no, voting one of the same two parties that have brought all this mess in the first place is not doing something. The Reps and Dems are equally responsible for the desolate state of the US democracy. So by your definition of "conspirator" you have conspirated to bring about the conditions in which Trump not only was elected, but has a chance to be reelected.

Which Israel repeatedly bombed when Egypt let trucks enter.

Because some of these actions might qualify as criminal offenses and if Discord had knowledge about it or even supported it, they'd be complicit.

Result of gender stereotypes affecting the behaviour of female and male children, so male children grow up to be more encouraged to learn about technology and engage in risk taking behaviour.

Also inclination to risk taking behaviour is much higher in biological men than biological women, which would also give a potential reason why this advertisment works on women but not on men.

As always these attributions only represent the average of the women and men populations as a whole. Ofc. there is risk averse men and tech savvy women.

i thought he was munching it into shape so it would fit the floppy drive.