I’m going to take a different approach than most of the other comments here: you can’t. Microplastics are in the air and a large chunk of it comes from car tire residue. You’re breathing it, likely right now. Research is still in the early phases and we just don’t know how bad it is yet, both from the proliferation and the impact side of things.

Source is Breaking the Plastic Wave and Overview on the occurrence of microplastics in air.

I think the distributed nature of Mastodon keeps government control from being an issue. It would be kind of cool as a space for citizens to ask for assistance or air grievances while giving the politicians an officially owned space for things like announcements.

They are very upfront about the bot describing bias against the American center and not the global or whatever “objective” standard people try to insert. By that metric, center-left perfectly describes NYT. Their editorial board has posted multiple times describing Trump as an unfit candidate and they have historically endorsed the democratic candidate. They’re obviously not even American leftist and they’re not center-left on the global scale, but it’s all relative.

I personally like the extra information and those who don’t are free to block the bot. I have seen commentor twisting themselves into absolute pretzels to avoid admitting that they can simply block the bot.

It’s listed in the article. It’s “Forever” by Judy Blume. Not sure that I’m familiar with it.

Hey, that’s a neat image. I’ve seen other ways of visualizing the popular vote on a map but this one looks wonky as hell and I like it.

None of that works when “because I say so” is supported by a majority of the electorate. I’m not sure where the numbers come up exactly on Walters and this specific issue, but the Oklahoma electorate is not gonna be as clean cut against this as you might hope.

Would be happy to help!

Nope! I don’t have to post to recognize horrible sources in the same way that I don’t have to write a song to know one hurts my ears to listen to.

Because Newsweek in particular deserves it? Post better sources.

sectional relations

Phenomenal

She’s a lot more borderline on the issue than Biden. Her speech in December-ish was fairly critical of Israel’s behavior up to that point and she called for a ceasefire pretty early on in comparison to others in the admin. She also normally would have presided over the speech Netanyahu gave this week, but chose not to. Is it enough? No, not really, but she’s the VP and effectively a figurehead. I think it bodes well for at least a small shift in stance if she makes it in though. Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Agreed, I would like to have seen some statements on Netanyahu’s many falsehoods in the speech. That’s not generally going to be done via press release though and I doubt she would overstep the current president on criticizing foreign leaders.

The question was centered on politics, so that’s what I addressed. Harris is running a campaign, so she is also centered around politics right now. It sucks but it’s how our world works right now.

They will be lightly affected by her denouncing some of the protestors (which is separate from supporting Israel and its genocide), yes. Remember that the Jewish voting bloc is also primarily democratic. If your concern is politics in this situation, it’s a very fine line that Dem politicians have to walk here.

Edit: I’m just gonna back out of this thread. I’m not supportive of the genocide, but yall also don’t want to have an actual conversation.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this title. It’s not clickbait and it accurately describes the content. You’re just upset you got caught out saying reactive, incorrect things about a video you didn’t watch.

It’s nobody’s fault but your own that you did not actually watch a video or read an article. Don’t watch/read, don’t comment. Easy. The title isn’t deceptive just because it isn’t a perfect TL;DR for lazy internet forum users.

Hey, stop focusing so much on “I told ya so” to people who are definitely on your side. I was torn on it as well, but out of consideration for the potential impact being unknown. Hindsight is 20/20 and we’re all better served by not gloating if we were right and instead focusing on the future path we are now on. Let’s just keep it positive and build this victory through positivity instead of potential fractures with people who likely agree with you on the issues.

They didn’t do one in this case, but I have heard stories of these sorts of malicious actors paying people stateside or elsewhere to take the video interviews. I’ve had to do ID checks on video in recent-ish interviews.

So is baseball. Do you have a point?

I really agree with both of you here. While there was an article or two posted with the opposite narrative, the NYT used their editorial discretion in a fairly flagrant way on this issue. It stood in stark contrast to other issues that they have gone out of their way to keep a neutral stance on as an overall paper (which I applaud). I’m not opposed to the newsroom, editorial team, or contributing writers having a stance unlike mine. I’m not the type to say “fuck all the media” all the time and think they’re generally diverse groups of professionals trying their best and sometimes failing. The fact that the NYT op-ed page and front page were just plastered in a single perspective though, without an opposing narrative, was just really blatant on this issue.

I was one of those canceled subs. I canceled WaPo after their disastrous leadership developments too. I’m basically running on cables and international outlets now, which is a real shame because I like to read other perspectives presented well, which the op-ed teams at those agencies are capable of doing.