“Remember Y2K and all the chaos that was supposed to happen? Computer nerds scared everybody into updating everything and make it ‘y2k proof’ or whatever and then it was a whole nothing burger.”

“Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Scientists made us ban CFC’s like we were going to die of skin cancer any day now and then nothing bad at all happened.”

After reading this article, I feel like I should know what actually happened on the show - I don’t though?

None of the above? I have certain traits that society thinks are weird. That’s about it. I’m neither cursed nor gifted, I just very much don’t fit the definition of “normal”.

The delist is presented as a big operating “loss” to tax authorities.

I have absolutely no fucking idea how taxes work. But this sounds to me like I have insurance on my hand and I sit down one evening with a knife and cut off my hand and then go to my insurance company, showing them my bloody stump: “gib money!”

wtf.

Depends on what country. But in general, probably because the departments responsible tend to be understaffed and overworked, regardless of where, and there are quite a lot of migrants.

My first thought was indeed Blinding Lights.

That’s nonsense, because they’re obviously looking for Erde.

In Germany, generally, students are expected to bring their own stuff, it’s not the school’s/teacher’s responsibility to provide pencils and what not. That’s probably where the confusion lies, there is no scenario in which a teacher has to specifically ask parents to provide supplies because they do that anyway.

You brought up specifically HD. I’m willing to watch ads so that YT can continue delivering even lower quality videos as long as those ads don’t interrupt the video.

So hide the HD stuff behind a paywall. I’m perfectly happy at 720p for the VAST majority of videos. Might even agree to go lower if it means I can watch it without ad breaks.

Oh come on, really? Is the problem ultrarich people? Or is the problem poor people who won’t eat those ultrarich people?

Productive is not what I’d call what I do but anyway: I don’t follow things that make me miserable or even just “people”. My feeds are full of all kinds of fun stuff, like my fandoms or science or art. So I don’t ever “doom scroll”, really, but read about what other people thought about that newest episode or some new thought they had about an ancient episode or general fan squealing about a ship or the newest weird findings about spinosaurus or ‘look at these new photos Perseverance has taken’ or ‘look at this detail in this awesome painting’ or ‘this is how to improve this aspect in your drawings’.

Yes I am on tumblr. Yes I am on tumblr too much.

The only opinion that matters here is your partner’s.

yes but porn

Sharing contact information directly phone to phone.

Lock screen widgets, giving me information at an actual glance without the risk of getting sucked into other random bullshit.

Yeah, I should probably qualify and say “one of the bigger, more stable currencies”. From what I know about this stuff, which isn’t very much admittedly, those seem worthwhile if you don’t plan to keep them anyway. I don’t care about volatility if I’m not hodling, do I?

I have absolutely no interest in owning cryptocurrency but if anybody wanted to donate some ETH or BTC or USDC or XKCD or MPH or whatever to me, I’d take it, sure (and then exchange for real world money, obviously). Why would you reject free money? Especially if you’re a smaller project that doesn’t get too many donations anyway.

They were not questioning the fact that these limits exist though.

I’d assume

That’s the thing, your view of humanity is rather idealistic. Most people are too cynical to assume that other people will help them out of the goodness of their heart. Not to mention that there are loads of people who indeed WOULDN’T help simply because someone else needs help.

Also people with disabilities aren’t helpless and can still be useful to a community

Obviously. But “making it public knowledge what requests each individual member has contributed” will inevitably lead to scrutiny of people who don’t contribute as much as others. That’s where you’d need to decide whether this person (who seems to be receiving more than they’re giving) actually cannot do more than they’re doing or whether they’re abusing the system.

So how do you determine if someone has contributed enough to receive something in return? What about people who cannot meet that demand, because of sickness and/or disability or other reasons?