I'm not defending Israel. I'm answering this guy's question, like wHaT PrOxIeS??
You can straw man all you want, but not once have I defended Israel's actions. Just because Israel is shit to gazans doesn't mean that Iran is not also shit to Israel. Straw man.
If we want to have a legitimate conversation about morality then we start by agreeing on facts.
Trying to claim Iran did nothing wrong is not factual.
The most prevalent proxies are the houthis and Hezbollah, which Iran has been arming, financially supporting, and influencing for about two decades now so they can attack Israel without getting themselves into an all out war with Israel and the USA, which they know they would likely lose.
Argue all you want about whether or not Israel should have bombed Iran, but calling it unprovoked is extremely disingenuous.
So I will preface my comment with the fact that I hate Internet ads and do everything within my power to block and/or avoid them. Aside from being annoying they're a blatant security and malware risk, and I avoid them for that reason alone.
That being said, hosting websites gets pretty expensive pretty fast when lots of people come to your site, especially with the advent of much higher bandwidth media that goes along with better quality images and video.
In my opinion the fact that the majority of people just have an expectation that everything online should be free is THE problem. I was there when the Internet was free and open and without ads. That was the culture, and the root of the issue we have today is that that culture is the foundation of the general expectation that it should continue to be so.
But that's not sustainable with the costs involved in hosting today. Shit costs money yo, why should other people bear that so you can search for recipes for free without it being annoying for you?
The fact that nobody is willing to pay for content via subscriptions or paid apps is literally why the ad-based model is the overwhelming majority of the Internet, and apps, and why data collection/sales is so rampant.
Web development and running a webpage is not easy. Even for those that are skilled enough that it's easy for them, it takes a ton of time. Usually multiple people's time for any site with enough visitors to make it a good site. App development is hard and takes a skill set that requires a lot of training or time investment to learn. Why should all that go for free for you?
Until people are willing to pay for content they find valuable the Internet will be a hell hole ridden with ads. YouTube ads are awful, but do you have any idea how much it costs to run YouTube? You think someone should just absorb that out of the goodness of their hearts? Ridiculous.
The goal of the Internet is still to share information and communicate, but all the hardware and bandwidth and time costs real dollars, and the only way for most sites to recoup that is via ads because people just won't pay anything if given an option, they'll just go to another site that has free content, because there's SO MUCH stuff that you can generally find what you want, for free with ads, somewhere else.
There's only two possible solutions that I see:
everyone starts being willing to pay for content they find valuable. I don't see this happening. There's too many people that share your opinion without taking into account what it costs to actually run a modern website.
some complicated type of system that directly pays websites for use, based off of usage from people. I think this is almost too complicated to implement that it's likely impossible with today's Internet. If we want to also maintain privacy/anonymity when surfing I can't see how this can ever work - so unless we have some future system where people are uniquely identifiable on the Internet, and then some additional system that somehow "fairly" compensates websites for traffic from users, this won't happen. It would need to involve ISPs, their customers, and web site owners in some coordinated payment system to work.
Not to sound too preachy but to me your comment comes off as super entitled.
I pay for apps that I think are valuable, even ones with no cost like Signal. Because I value what they provide. I subscribe to sites that I find valuable enough to do so when it's an option. I abhor data collection and ads and I fight them without prejudice. But even I don't think I pay enough directly to offset how much I cost providers, I'm sure I don't, but that's mostly laziness because it's a pain to pay every site directly so I donate to the ones I really appreciate and use heavily. If I could pay my ISP for my link and then have a direct credit system that throws dollars and cents directly into website coffers as I use them, that would be great - but I don't want to give up my privacy either, so.... Yeah.
Long story short, ad-based content is going nowhere until there's a fundamental shift in either people or how the Internet operates.
I left home 15 years ago for work. In that time I've traveled to dozens of countries and lived in several places in the USA, but no place has the diverse, welcoming people as home, and the natural beauty on display.
This week, work took me home. I've gotten to work with organizations that I was a part of as a child, eat at restaurants that I loved and worked at, and visit old haunts. Today I drove by the house I grew up in and parked outside to take a selfie to send my mom, and a lady stepped out, and I (awkwardly) approached her and had a lovely conversation about the house. They've fixed it up so nicely, and we laughed about how weird it was (originally built as a single story partially underground, and then had a second story built on top and turned into a duplex, and then once again lived in as a single family home).
I'm home. And I can't wait to come back when I quit this job, and bring my family here and move back into the same neighborhood I grew up in, and live in joy until I die.
Retro is always in. Rock it!
I care about you, stranger. I hope you're doing well.
About half of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. The just don't make the news.
The 6/3 splits usually do but they're actually much more rare.
Maintaining geosynchronous orbit does require maintenance because there's still a non-trivial amount of air resistance that will slowly decrease speed and de-orbit the satellite.
With a bit more detail: there is a specific altitude and speed that an object must maintain in order to stay in orbit above a fixed point above the earth. Earth's mass, and thus its gravitational pull, dictate this speed and altitude through physics. There are other speeds and attitudes that can achieve the same effect (geosynchronous orbit) but they require propulsion to maintain. With the Earth, that "sweet spot" where you can achieve the correct orbital velocity to keep a geosynchronous orbit is still within the atmosphere, albeit very thin, so friction with the air slowly makes satellites lose speed. An orbit is based on speed (speed up and you get farther away from the planet, slow down and you draw closer to the planet) so as the satellites slow down they have to periodically "boost up" or eventually their orbit will decay and they'll re-enter and burn up.
Self destruct? Not a good idea. Controlled re-entry is essentially self destruct.
More space junk from just a random explosion is really bad. Space junk is really bad. If it gets bad enough it can potentially have a cascading effect where space junk collides with other stuff and causes more space junk and explosions, starting a chain reaction that creates a scatter field of junk that traps us on the planet. The concept is known as Kessler Syndrome.
No, he was responding to a top level comment about banning a style of weapons being ineffective, and essentially said that banning this particular platform of weapon will be effective because reasons.
That's a pretty common perspective for anyone that's never lived a life where you must hunt in order to put food on your family's table, or you need to shoot coyotes or other pests that attach your livestock or crops that threaten your farm-to-table, or lived in an area where there's literally no police for an hour or more and it's just you if anyone comes knocking.
Poor rural folks don't have a huge representation on Lemmy but there are plenty that live this way in the USA.
You don't see it in the bigger cities and suburbs, rightfully so.
I don't even live in a small town and there's plenty of people I work with that drive in ~45 minutes and have livestock that have to worry about coyotes and other wild dogs attacking their livestock.
Guns are a tool. If you can't imagine what they're a tool for all it means is you lack perspective to see how - no judgment, just stating the fact. I mention all this because this misunderstanding is a huge reason for the divide between pro/anti gun crowds, and closing the gap can help set us up for better discussions about where we want to go in terms of gun legislation (assuming you're in the USA - if not then all applies in general, not to you specifically)
My reply wasn't in response to the law, but to the guy claiming that by removing AR-15s you increase the barrier to entry to mass shootings.
Perhaps. But you realize it now, and you also have the opportunity to take things in a different direction if you want.
Communication is important. Admitting when you did something that you think is wrong is good, we all make mistakes. Tell her that you're sorry and why, and let it be. Either she will forgive you and you guys can move forward if it works, or she won't want anything to do with you, and both are fine. Emotions are complicated.