Yeah if I’d be her I’d rather cut my finger off than do that tbh 😅

If she uses software from CC and not only stores data there then I don’t think anything will be able to replace it without frustration. You have to get used to a whole different workflow.

I mean we’re here in the comments to exchange perspectives primarily. Never saw anyone quoting research papers. There’s no rule about forbidding comments to be biased or opinionated. So I’d say our access to any form of potential objective truth, as fundamental basis for discussion, is fairly limited. World news is not only about scientifically validated facts. It’s rather a fast paced informational feed, where you have to balance speed and factual quality.

And we had context for the anticar lobby comment, so it’s not like the person said: look, here is the irrefutable truth from an independent source. They rather said: Look here are some reasons for why XYZ is bad.

I don’t have a problem with it, besides it being a lazy and hard to read solution.

I’m not sure if you know what objective truth means, but why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility? It’s not their goal to be objective, but to push for change. Not saying the things they stated are wrong, but they are first and foremost moral statements.

Where do they say it represents a form of ‘objective truth’?

But I agree walls of text are not nice, at least try to summarize it a bit to make it readable…

Also social factors come to play, like influencing purchasing behavior, cooking, food at restaurants etc

Their motivation might be to get the kids hooked on the stuff early on. Sugar works like a drug in some ways by releasing dopamine in the brain and if you train your brain early on it will affect it longterm. Plus it will influence their future taste preferences. Everything else, besides Nestle’s oversugared snacks will taste bland in comparison. Leading to kids crying at supermarket checkouts to get their favourite snacks :D

Just the system embedded LOS alarm clock. I don’t trust any third party alarm clock apps to work when I need them to.

And that’s the same as going to war yourself? I never said I have a problem supporting countries fighting Russia monetarily.

Why are you not yet volunteering in Ukraine then?

I’m talking from my perspective

Yeah I’m not gonna go to war over gps spamming attacks lol

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/afd-chrupalla-israel-hamas-100.html

I would say they haven’t found a unified elaborated position on that topic within the party yet.

I’m surprised they can still walk around outside, when there are literally cars everywhere. Those are killing way more people on ‘second hand’ exposure than tobacco.

Because people need some time to adapt. Make it 5 if you want. I don’t think we should get rid of a transition phase however.

Let’s hope it will turn out like you said, I’m all for it.

That’s such a ridiculous and unnecessary scenario. Just make it illegal in 20 years and be done with it. Why put so much money and effort into such a badly designed solution?

Not everyone can buy a gun, to get the paperwork you need to meet a somewhat arbitrary age requirement and you have to be “mentally stable”. So we are discriminating against mentally handicapped people.

Sure, that’s exactly what we do. And there’s a good reason for that. I’m also not against dropping it, just because it’s discriminatory.

Okay, maybe a better example: if you’re interested in becoming president you have to be at least 40. Sounds like age discrimination to me :P

Sure. In this case I don’t see a rightful reason for it to exist though, which is why it has to be abolished.

I hate second hand smoke as much as every other non-smoker, but I’m not a fan of banning smoking, just because I think it’s annoying. Let people ruin their health if they want it that bad. We live in a time where second hand smoke is almost completely avoidable. At least in Germany. With the vapes it’s even less of a problem now. If I breathe in smoke from some other guys’ cigarette once a month it won’t affect my health.

However there’s a much much bigger problem regarding breathing in toxic fumes, which we should address immediately: cars.

Care to share it? I’m quite sure it’s applicable in this case.

Allowing the future 45-year old to smoke, while making it illegal for the future 44-year old, sounds like text book age-based discrimination to me. And the health based age argument (protecting the youth), which is the main reason for smoking/alcohol regulations, doesn’t make sense here, cause they’re not teens anymore.

I disagree. It’s not the same, because everyone can buy a gun if they have the paperwork for it (and noone can buy the uranium). It’s not only an exclusive group of old people, people with spots on their skin or people with green eyes. Otherwise it would be discrimination, because it creates differential treatment based solely on age, skin type, eye color…

We also discriminate against young people to protect their vulnerable health via alcohol, tobacco regulations. But it’s justifiable and ‘good’ discrimination, because they’re not of age yet and need to be protected.

I’m not smoking or anything btw so I’m not emotionally involved in this argument, I’m just curious about the debate :D