bradbeattie

Dug up the paper in question for anyone curious: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216. At a cursory glance, I'm not seeing any of the referenced concerns. But, y'know, down vote away I guess.

Following the trail of your comment: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets does indeed cite https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216, but I'd love it if you could provide more details on your criticisms of methodology.

If the camera really does need to be that thick for lens reasons, couldn't we at least make the rest of the body bigger with more battery?

Steam still lists Civ7 as requiring a third-party account and stays off my wishlist while it does.

Speaking of unhelpful, eurogamer.net is littered with ads. They add no value to the original Reddit post (https://old.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/1emb4ch/valve_is_finally_addressing_bad_reviews_issue/).

Just hold off for now. They might take your money, shut it down, and mandate that you buy "Industrial Annihilation: Titans" for an extra $15.

Just copy/pasting something I wrote in another thread as it applies just as much here. https://lemmy.ca/comment/4835622

Want to sabotage a protest? Encourage advocacy for increasingly tangential issues. Focus splits, folks start disagreeing on new issues, folks start disagreeing on how issues get prioritized, everything falls apart.

Sadly, this doesn't even require a malicious actor encouraging it. Well-meaning folks see a potentially sympathetic audience for their pet issue and boom.

I'll happily debate political beliefs, but not here. In vegan communities, I'm here for the animals and welcome anyone here with similar motivations. Fragmenting the community by requiring increasingly narrow adherence to beliefs X, Y, and Z is not helpful.

Probably worth distinguishing the cross-party ERRE survey from the LPC push-poll that was mydemocracy.ca.

Compare as an example the quality of questions and their inherent biases:

The former asked people to rate how much they agreed with statements like

• Independent candidates should be able to be elected to Parliament
• The current electoral system adequately reflects voters' intentions
• Seats should be allocated in proportion to the percentage of votes received by each political party
• Voters should elect local candidates to represent them in Parliament
• The current electoral system should be changed

Whereas the latter asked more loaded questions:

• There should be parties in Parliament that represent the views of all Canadians, even if some are radical or extreme.
• Governments should have to negotiate their policy decisions with other parties in Parliament, even if it is less clear who is accountable for the resulting policy.
• It is better for several parties to have to govern together than for one party to make all the decisions in government, even if it takes longer for government to get things done.

I'm actively working on building something for this. In the interim, most phones have something akin to a voice recorder with transcriptions.

Oh man, you read my mind: https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/pull/7663#issuecomment-1758314971. Thanks for jumping on this!

Its the same "power corrupts" story again and again. Karina Gould gave an impassioned speech on electoral reform (http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-64/hansard#Int-8963139). But after replacing Maryam Monsef as Minister of Democratic Institutions, her views suddenly became far more simplistic. In a 2017 interview on CBC's Metro Morning, she was asked "Why is it important that people at the very least believe every vote counts?". She replies "Because they do. … We literally count them: 1, 2, 3, 4, up to the majority that wins."