Could someone explain why binding arbitration clauses are horrible? My understanding is that it keeps costs low on both sides as taking things to actual court can get expensive.

The difference between a hostage and a prisoner is why you are detaining them. If you are detaining them for some crime or to prevent them from doing some crime or harm to “society”(the powerful) then they are a prisoner. If you are detaining them to try and trade or gain concessions from another party then they are a hostage.

The difference between lawful and illegal escape attempts isn’t between hostages and prisoners, false imprisonment is a crime and if you escape or help someone escape that’s legal. Taking hostages can also be legal, Putin will often make some trumped up charge for an American so he can use them as a pawn in a prisoner exchange, nominally the intent is to lock them up for committing a crime, but in reality they are hostages in putins game. The difference is whether the state is detaining the person or a non state actor.

The vast majority of coding isn’t making something new, it’s using existing patterns and tools and arranging them to fit a specific use case.

Llms may not be able to create a new framework or design pattern, but neither will most coders in there day to day.

Yeah, since it’s “peace time” and less risk there’s probably a decent chunk of the armed forces who are just in it for the perks ( free college, Healthcare) and don’t believe in it and are trying to serve there time and get out and not make a career of it.

They aren’t cops who almost always want to be cops and make it a core part of their identity and belief system. They aren’t allowed on lemmy.

That’s the whitest thing I’ve heard of in a while.

Same with SO answers that are “use this library i made”

In the u.s. a bidet refers to a type of toilet or an attachment for a toilet that shoots water at your asshole to clean it while your still on the toilet after you shit. The separate sink as a bidet is unheard of here.

If it was a comedy I would give it a pass, but this episode wasn’t, or at least it was a bad one. The only sort of funny scene was the sermon. The rest was young boys slowly dying.

Thanks for the references.

Fair enough, seems there’s not full consensus on this. Just wanted to point out that there is real science backing the idea that saturated fat is bad and it’s not just some contrived myth by a bunch of politicians like OP said.

I get the focus is supposed to be on Elijah and how bad he is but the background is the lost cause myth and sympathizing with the common confederate troops. I guess you could say they didn’t want to make the confederates look bad so Elijah could look horrible in comparison, but you could’ve had Elijah just be even more racist then the troops.

Like the only sort of funny part where he gives the sermon, if it were realistic he would’ve gone full race baiting and go one about how the unions gonna come and free the n*****s and slavery is in the Bible etc. to rile up the troops. But in this mythical confederacy racism and slavery don’t exist which is ahistorical.

They gave it back after doing a war crime and executing prisoners of war. They also executed them with a fucking gattling gun which is just cruel. I think they were trying to get you to sympathize with the confederates about to die instead of the northerners who were killing an already defeated foe.

if it was a serious show I’d agree but it’s satire

I agree, righteous gemstones generally whitewashes the southern church and rarely shows the racism and homophobia that would be present. But I give it a pass because it’s funny, this episode wasn’t funny. The only joke of the show was him giving a bad sermon to those troops, the rest was just sad imagery of confederate boys dying. This episode was them trying to be serious and it didn’t work IMO.

Just going through the wikipedia and a lot of health organizations still recommend reducing saturated fat including the WHO, the American Heart Association, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the British Dietetic Association, the World Heart Federation, the British National Health Service. These organizations are run by health professionals, not politicians with some vague anti-fat agenda.

Here’s a study going over some meta analysis and finding that

Saturated fat was associated with an 8% increase and trans fats; a 13% increase in total mortality compared with carbohydrate. Thus, replacing 5% of energy from saturated fats with equivalent energy from PUFA ( polyunsaturated fat) and MUFA ( monounsaturated fat ) was associated with estimated reductions in total mortality of 27% and 13%, respectively

It goes on to say that there is less evidence for fat in general to cause cardiovascular disease and mortality, but saturated fat and trans fats definitely do.

It seems to be a bit of both. The article does cite a lot of comments agreeing with what the older relatives said and getting a bunch of likes. So some people are laughing at how horrible and racist it is, but some are laughing at the unapologetically saying what we’re all thinking aspect.

A lot of racist jokes are just people saying their biases out loud and unapologetically, and then the racists laugh because they agree, and they get to affirm those beliefs. You might get some people on the other side laughing at the absurdity, but for the people of the race being made fun of, it just feels like the attack it is. Especially when the subject is serious and you can’t distance yourself from it, and nothing is more serious than genocide.

Like if you showed these to a Palestinian child they’d probably become depressed and scared by it. If you showed these to a boomer israeli they would probably laugh at it and say they’re right.

Going to steel man this since theres obviously no one on here answering this question seriously. Not a republican and don’t agree with all this, just imagining what my republican dad would say about this:

For ukraine and Europe, we have no interest in protecting them besides sentimental attachments. Ukraine is not our problem, it’s Europe’s and if they want to dump money into a lost cause by all means go ahead, but leave the u.s. out of it unless your going to compensate us for it. The u.s. isn’t threatened by Russia, we have an ocean, the world’s largest navy and nukes to protect us. The larger threat is China and we should be focusing on them, not russia which can barely invade it’s neighbor, much less march across Europe and the atlantic. Europe can handle its own problems.

For Canada and Mexico and tarriffs in general. We need to bring manufacturing back to America and revitalize the rust belt. We can’t do that if companies find it more profitable to go over seas and pay people pennies when they’d have to pay Americans much more. The only way to get them to come back is to make it too expensive to import things.

This is all about putting America first. For decades America has been spending billions to protect Europe and has been sending billions of dollars over seas to build factories owhile factory after factory closes here in the u.s. We need to stop all of that and spend our money in America for Americans.

Feel free to use this comment as a punching bag, I don’t care, just trying to give OP an actual answer if this was a legitimate question and not some rhetorical question seeking affirmation on how dumb the Republicans are. They are, don’t get me wrong, but just say so and don’t dress it up in questions like this.

Depends on where the burden is being placed. If it’s adding more hoops for everyday people to jump through to get what they need, no. If it’s adding more hoops for large organizations and corporations who can hire people for compliance, yes. If it’s just hiring more people on the government side to analyze the existing data, but the forms and processes stay the same on the other end, sure.