Australia (country) has Timor Sea and Arafura Sea on the north, not an ocean. But New Guinea belongs to Australia (continent), so it doesn’t actually matter, both sides of the sea are the same continent. Unless we consider only the main landmass of each continent and ignore all islands.
Panama, with it’s canal, is entirely in North America too, so the canal doesn’t matter anyway.
This is a discussion you can absolutely have. But “missing the point of a union” and being “anti-union” are very different things.
“Anti-union” is Rockstar for firing 31 employees in a union bust, or Amazon for having employees watch mandatory propaganda videos about how unions are evil. Lumping them together with a business owner who basically said “I hope the good relationship I have my employees lasts and nobody starts feeling like they need additional support when talking with me” is at best misleading.
I think your for the sake of the argument example is exactly what Linus had in mind, where he would consider it his failure if it happened and hopes it won’t. But if it does and employees unionise, so be it.
Then you don’t count Africa either?
In fact if it has to be surrounded by an ocean then there are only two continents, Antarctica and everything else. You can cross them all without entering an ocean, only seas.
If you count the Panama Canal and squint, you can make an argument. Not so much for the above.
I see two impostors, not one. Asia and Europe.
It’s a joke, the corn is a type of crop, and this one is bad.
Where I live it isn’t. The bells ring 15 min before each mass and that’s it. Mass at 13:40? Bells go off at 13:25. On Sunday this happens several times a day at “random” times of day that have nothing to do with telling the time.
Yeah, I love the new faces, hope Derek doesn’t leave, but if he does, he’s leaving it in good hands.
This is such a silly discussion.
There is one group of people who define the word “piracy” to include “ad blocking”, and another group that define “piracy” so that it doesn’t. Nobody disagrees about the state of reality, both groups just think the other group has an incorrect definition. Which is a pointless discussion.
Both groups can say “Ad blockers are piracy” and “Ad blockers are not piracy”, and they are both correct, for what they mean the word “piracy” to mean. The disagreement is about semantics, not about anything useful.
The “ad block is piracy” crowd can instead say “ad block is a way to access content circumventing parts of the intended business model of the platform, since the platform intended you to view ads”. The “ad block is not piracy” crowd can instead say “ad block is not a way to access content without payment, because the platform didn’t require payment”.
And they are both correct, just misunderstand each other, because they both mean something different when they say “piracy”, which results in one group saying one thing, and the other group understanding it in an unintended way. It’s silly because no one is actually disagreeing with each other about anything, it’s a miscommunication issue.
This is not true. What he said is that he would consider it a personal failure if his employees felt the need to unionise, but he would support them in doing so. There is nothing “anti-union” about that sentiment.
Unless of course he also said something else that I don’t know about, but then I would love a source.
Look at the bottom right
Agree, but security theater is more important, clearly.
The liquids are not allowed because they mess with explosive detectors. Not because anyone thinks they are dangerous.
It’s not “we don’t allow liquids cause they may be explosive”. It’s “we don’t allow liquids cause if you have any in your luggage, we won’t be able to correctly detect explosives you might also have”.
That’s why some airports now allow liquids. Newer scanners can detect explosives even in luggages that also contain liquids.
Nobody thinks your bottle of water is dangerous. But your bottle of water will prevent the explosives detector from working.
The liquids are not allowed because they mess with explosive detectors. Not because anyone thinks they are dangerous.
It’s not “too dangerous to allow liquid on a plane”. It’s “we can’t detect explosives in your luggage if there are also liquids in it”.
Yeah, but that’s an argument against being able to live forever, not an argument against evolution being able to happen, if you did.
That is indeed what happens, and it is helpful. But I disagree evolution wouldn’t happen without it.
I used the Android app Boost for Reddit. One day I opened it as usual, browsed as usual, but something felt a bit odd. Turns out it was updated into being a Lemmy app instead. Fair enough then, I continued my scrolling.
There is also nothing inherently wrong with “optimization” and “automation”. It’s just that they are buzzwords and how the tech bros approach these topics.
Hmm, why can’t there be evolution without death? As long as organisms reproduce, genes are passed on, and some reproduce more successfully than others, why would it matter if existing individuals stay around or not? I don’t see how it makes evolution fundamentally impossible.
They were not only not allowing it, they immediately blocked the user’s attempt to put it on their servers and banned the user for even trying. That’s as far from allowing it as possible.