cmhe

I did read that. And how much of it was distributed, it doesn't say.

In every article on records about of food preparation, they never say how much of it is eaten and how much of it is thrown away.

I would necessitate that all or a large percentage of it needs to be eaten for the record to count.

Maybe you are scarcastic, but I think nobody should be afraid of their life by getting killed by random people.

They should be afraid of the people, but not of individuals with guns or money to hire contract killers.

Kirk's death was a public assassination. There are many easier for ways someone can kill an unsuspecting target. The way the killer escaped makes it likely they where professional or otherwise trained, not just crazy. The killer choose a difficult and public way to kill him, meaning it is more then just about killing Krik. It is clearly a message, question is what message and to whom.

TBH, I could imagine Mark Shuttleworth being there.

He is one of the first, if not the first space tourist.

The DMCA takedowns work like that, AFAIK.

Like if two people happens to draw the same exact map, then what? Who gets to sue who? First come first serve? Literally does not make sense.

In many cases intention matters. Two people can take the same picture and that would be fine, but if the intention was to copy someone's work, then this is bad.

Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didn't, which inverts the burden of proof. Copyright as it works right now, serves more the wealthy then the little men, as it is with so many laws under the current system.

Copyright itself needs to be reorganized fundamentally.

Would say that it is the same here as it elsewhere, we need a strong counter narrative and a charismatic person that is fronted by a leading party that manages to deliver that, while cutting through all the bullshit spewed by the demagoguery of the right. We need fighters, not 'civility' politics against people that are anti-democratic.

We need better social policies and actually mean them. Those were what people wanted and often still want when they are baited by the right.

Right wing mention actual social issues, but "resolve" them with xenophobic "solutions", while also fabricating issues out of thin air, like immigrant crime, etc. Which suddenly all other parties think they need to address as well.

Schon, aber man sollte auch irgendwas gegen diese Kiddies und andere Spinner tun, die an Schulen vorbeirasen.

Finde es auch irgendwie interessant das "Beschützen von Kindern" als Grund genommen wird um Verschlüsselung zu verbieten und damit direkt die Demokratie anzugreifen, aber das Gleichzeitig nicht für die Verkehrswende genutzt werden kann, wegen dem zu erwartendem Gegenwind.

Sollte es nicht ein Fahrverbot sein? Stehende Autos überfahren ja keine Kinder.

I don't see the contradiction... If a man explains something to another person in a condescending and nitpicky way, it is called mansplaining. But it becomes blurry if the man explains it not to one other person, which can be assumed already possesses that knowledge, but a group where some people might find that comment not useless or condescending, were it could be a correction or clarification instead.

Astronaut explains excitedly about her experience of the day, with a joke and some not completely factual information while addressing the general public. The 'water spontaneously boils' is not a scientific description but a way to make people interested in learning more about the science behind it.

Here are two perspectives this could be seen as:

1. Man notices that and addresses the Astronaut, explaining to her something that she already knows, in order to raise his own status, through condescending and nitpicking. -> mansplaining
2. Man notices that, assumes the Astronaut knows, but wants to give more information/clarification to the public about this why that happens. -> not mansplaining

From the wording of that exchange, I would think it rather is addressed to the astronaut, so case 1. But this is open to interpretation.

I guess the question is who they were even talking to. Where they talking to the astronaut, or anyone reading their message. That would make a difference.

If I say: "When the sun rises..." and someone comes along to enlighten me about astronomy and how the sun doesn't rise, that would be mansplaining and not correcting. If they talk to someone else because my words inspirerd them to think about this, then it wouldn't.