Google Pixel has the most support for security, which relates to privacy. It does “phone home,” but likely only to Google. Removing all the Google software and installing GrapheneOS further hardens the security and vastly improves the privacy by stopping the “phoning home.”
It’s refutable, and also you can use Google’s results through a different search engine, like SearXNG
Disagreeing with general consensus ≠ wrong
An entire country being contrary just because of national pride and arrogance is completely different.
Is it your position that all countries should have the same language regardless of their cultural history?
Also, it isn’t rooted in national pride or arrogance. Aluminum came first and was the name given by the first chemist - a British scientist - to isolate the metal. The variant aluminium came from a reviewer who changed the spelling just because he liked the sound better. Aluminum was recognized by ACS 65 years before IUPAC standardized to aluminum. IUPAC has recognized aluminum as an acceptable spelling since 1993. So yeah, the general concensus is the aluminum is okay even based on your logic because IUPAC says so.
Exactly this. Most G20 countries had reduced coal emissions but China and India (plus Indonesia and Turkey) had increased coal emissions per capita. Because those countries account for ~3 billion people, nearly 40% of the world population, and an even greater percentage of G20 population, the total coal emissions of G20 has increased.
You talk about it like all scientists could ever agree to something and that it would be possible to poll every single one and properly weight their individual scientific relevance.
I’m agreeing that depleted uranium weapons are a bad idea. I’m disagreeing that someone is illiterate for not believing an opinionated source.
I could easily quote Wikipedia just as the prior comment quoted OP’s article:
The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.
Surely the DoD has at least some scientific research, no? It would be foolish to take this quote and believe that depleted uranium is safe, and it would be even more foolish to insult someone’s intelligence for not doing so.
What are you on about? @[email protected] was doing exactly the thing that you’re describing. Treating statements from an organization called “The Coalition to Ban Something” as fact, without any other review, is only believing information that confirms your beliefs.
That’s not the same thing at all.
The comment above mine is more akin to wanting to ban water because the Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide said so. Or wanting to ban abortion because Americans United for Life said they’re immoral. Or to increase fossil fuel usage because OPEC said it isn’t bad for the environment. You’re citing an opinionated secondary source without even considering the other side.
If you want facts, you go to unbiased, peer reviewed primary sources. Or at least hear both sides. If you want opinions, go to a “coalition to ban something.”
The comment 2 above mine was saying that depleted uranium’s effects are up for debate. The next commenter provided only one side of the argument and claimed that it was fact, even mocking their literacy for not seeing it.
If only the world were so simple that we could trust the organization tasked with banning the substance rather than reading primary sources.
I agree that depleted uranium shouldn’t be used, but your quote from the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons means nothing.
Who the fuck uses instagram for group chats?
But for the Quran, “in public” is sufficient to meet the standard of “at” them?
Hinduism often has a belief in, “sanctity of the cow, … the belief that the cow is representative of divine and natural beneficence and should therefore be protected and venerated” (Brittanica).
One could argue that eating beef is inciting and degrading to [probably a select few] members of Hinduism.
As opposed to…? Are you saying that collective ownership over the means of production would solve this problem, or that under communism people just simply wouldn’t be able to have cars?
I agree with your edit. Those below the poverty line shouldn’t/can’t finance an EV battery. Combustion cars can be purchased for ~$500 and are usually fixable for only a few hundred dollars with enough time and tools. Most engine problems are more expensive in labor than in parts, so almost anyone can fix for cheap with YouTube tutorials. If all else fails, junk yards are full of parts, including engines and transmissions.
Even if EVs may have better reliability, when it comes time to sell it, someone in poverty can’t afford to buy and fix it. The raw materials in the battery are worth too much, and the batteries don’t last forever.
People may not have (or have access to) banking, financing, etc and shouldn’t need to finance everything in their life. Financing is like a tax on the poor.
Hopefully these things change in the future, public transit improves, we make combustion cars cleaner, or batteries get cheaper, but right now it’s the poorest that will be paying most for this environmental crisis.
Don’t use Gmail or Chrome
The original thread was about how houses with pools have more children die than houses with guns. Your point indicated that this was only because guns are less commonplace (sharks are less commonplace than vending machines). However, guns are more commonplace. The guns sitting in a safe aren’t harming anyone. The pools sitting in backyards might be.
They don’t seem as transparent as tutanota