Your comment is only technically correct, so I am gonna add to that:

Alfred Nobel did invent dynamite and was also a believer in mutually assured destruction, BUT: those two facts are not directly connected.

Dynamite in itself was not intended for warfare, but for mining. It was still relatively unstable so not really suited for warfare. (TNT, which came around 1900, solved that problem.)

Nobel did invent smokeless powder for warfare and he transformed Bofors into an arms manufacturing company though.

https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/

This game never was verified. It was playable despite being unsupported, which it is not anymore.

I disagree.

If all people would immediately reward them with a positive review after backpedaling, then their learned lesson would be "just try it out, worst case we can backpedal". By leaving up a negative review, they might realize that they should not even try it if they want to keep the goodwill.

I will leave my negative review standing, although I also have other points of criticism.

The story of the Tree That Owns Itself is widely known and is almost always presented as fact. Only one person—the anonymous author of "Deeded to Itself"—has ever claimed to have seen Jackson's deed to the tree. Most writers acknowledge that the deed is lost or no longer exists—if in fact it ever did exist. Such a deed would have no legal effect. Under common law, the recipient of a piece of property must have the legal capacity to receive it, and the property must be delivered to—and accepted by—the recipient.[6] Both are impossible for a tree to do, as it isn't a legal person.

[...]

"However defective this title may be in law, the public recognized it."[11] In that spirit, it is the stated position of the Athens-Clarke County Unified Government that the tree, in spite of the law, does indeed own itself.[12] It is the policy of the city of Athens to maintain it as a public street tree.[13]

[...]

Although the story of the Tree That Owns Itself is more legend than history, the tree has become, along with the University Arch and the Double-Barreled Cannon, one of the most recognized and well-loved symbols of Athens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself

In reality, the tree is not protected by law, but by the will of the people. Kind of symbolic if you ask me.

First: fuck Israel's Genocide in Gaza.

Second: this article is extremely biased, to the point that it is basically misinformation. The people they are talking about are Yasemin Acar and Salah Said, infamous protesters in Berlin. Here is a translated part of a german newspaper, video evidence is linked in the article:

Speaking at a demonstration in January, she literally threatened: "If violence is the only option, we will use it." She then celebrated the attacks by the Islamist Houthi militia: "Yemen, Yemen we are proud, turn another ship around."

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/die-stimme-des-israelhasses-wenn-gewalt-die-einzige-option-ist-werden-wir-sie-anwenden-11284348.html

Of course the police is searching the homes of people that threaten violence themselves and encourage terrorist attacks on civilian ships.

Don't need an additional thing by law. 😑

You still don't need it if you don't spy on your users. Cookie banners are not required. Asking for consent before collecting data that goes beyond the necessary minimum is required.

I found the original source of the photo: It is an article by "The New Yorker" from 2019 that confirms and explains the situation.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/a-guided-tour-of-hebron-from-two-sides-of-the-occupation

[...] Hebron, in an area where about thirty thousand Palestinians—a fraction of the number who used to live here—live under direct Israeli military rule, which protects fewer than a thousand Israeli settlers. This part of the city is freely accessible to Israeli citizens and foreigners, but most Palestinians can enter only if they’re residents.

[...]

For a second it felt like we were in a covered market, but this was because the street is fenced in from the top, with a sort of wire net intended to protect the Palestinian traders and their customers from rocks, bottles, and trash thrown by Israeli settlers who live on the street just above. Amro pointed at metal sheeting placed over a section of the net; it is meant to guard against acid that settlers pour down, to destroy the goods sold here.

[...]

In 1997, as part of the Oslo peace process, Israel and the Palestinian Authority drew a line splitting Hebron in two. The area designated as H-1 is controlled by the Palestinian Authority; in H-2, the Palestinian Authority has civil administration over Palestinian residents and the Israeli military controls everything else. H-1 is far larger, and in the past two years its population has roughly doubled, while H-2’s has dwindled because settler violence and I.D.F. restrictions have made life unbearable for Palestinians. But H-2 contains the city’s historic center, its most popular square, and its wholesale, vegetable, spice, and other markets—all of them now hollowed out. The market street through which Amro leads his tour hits a dead end at the border between H-1 and H-2. Here, though, the border is also vertical: the market street is in H-1; the street directly above is in H-2. This is why the protective net and metal sheeting are necessary.

Just today there was a great comment by @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works on why this does not make any sense.

1. When you factor in the incredible damage done to the Tesla share price by the amount of stock he had to liquidate to finance the deal, and the almost billion a year in interest and operating costs the company is pulling out of him, the deal has, altogether, cost Musk about half of his net worth. No amount of petty childishness is worth that.

2. He literally went to court to try to get out of the deal. What was his play here? To sue with the intention of failing? For what possible reason?
3. If his plan was to kill Twitter, why would he attach his beloved X name to it? Musk has spent his entire life trying to make X happen. It is dearer to him than his own children. Why would he attach that brand to a company he’s intentionally sabotaging?
4. If his goal is to kill Twitter, why is it still here? He owns the company outright. He took it private. There’s no board. There’s no shareholders. He doesn’t have a fiduciary responsibility. If he wanted Twitter dead, all he had to do was shut the doors, turn off the lights, and send everyone home.

Anyone who buys into this “He’s trying to kill Twitter” nonsense, please, I am begging you, try to get your head around the fact that Elon Musk is not a smart man. This isn’t some incredible 4D chess play. Twitter isn’t failing because of intentional sabotage; it’s failing because Musk is genuinely trying his best, and his best absolutely sucks. He’s a bad businessman who lucked into a fortune he never deserved.

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/4855307

They did in fact do that in the English translation of some Arabic bios:

He had written in his bio that he was Palestinian, followed by a Palestinian flag and the word "alhamdulillah" in Arabic - which translates to "praise be to God" in English. However, upon clicking "see translation", viewers were given an English translation reading: "Praise be to God, Palestinian terrorists are fighting for their freedom".

The linked article in this post is a cut down version of the original BBC article below, except it somehow lost all of the important content in the process: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67169228

While I partly agree with your argument at the end of your comment, I think your examples are really unfitting.

Only single-use plastic straws are banned. There is also an exemption for straws that are necessary for medical reasons. The needs of disabled people are included in the exemption. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003536-ASW_EN.html

If people buy a new car, the old one (if still functional) typically enters the second-hand market, not the landfill. There is no reason why this would be different if the new car is an electric vehicle.

The carbon footprint is a perfectly fine concept on its own, the problem is just that some people shit on it with their private jets, which are a legitimate concern. Some people also argue that "most of the pollution is done by corporations, not individuals", completely ignoring the fact that these corporations only do it while producing goods for the people. That does not mean that we can just blame the people for it, but everybody has the responsibility to vote for policies that keep the corporations in check.

Recycling is really bad in some countries, but works pretty well in others. For example in Germany 56% of plastic waste is recycled, 44% burned. 90% of paper is recycled. https://www.quarks.de/umwelt/muell/das-solltest-du-ueber-recycling-wissen/#l%C3%B6sung4

I read through the mentioned study that is quoted in the article as the source for that number with a translator, but I cannot find anything relating to the number. On the contrary, the mentioned rates of abuse seem to be way lower.

In general, 24% of respondents are aware of the use of physical force (beatings, blows) in families among their environment, including their own. Every fourteenth resident of Russia (7%) witnessed domestic assault in the parental family, and every twentieth (5%) practices or is the object of violence in their own. Given the sensitivity of the topic of violence for the interview format, we can assume that this share in both cases may be higher.

(Translated)

https://www-levada-ru.translate.goog/2019/09/13/domashnee-nasilie/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

At the end it talks about which acts are generally considered domestic violence by married people, but it does not even talk about the rate of abused married woman in particular.

Maybe someone who can read russian can find something here that I cannot? But as of now I see no source for the claim.

Edit: Just to be clear: I am not supporting Russia's War. I am merely pointing out that the source for the claim does not actually support the claim.

I don't think the article is trying to claim that labor exploitation is new.

This part directly admits that it is a very old phenomenon:

It’s been noted, and correctly so, that entertainment industry labor disputes often erupt when there’s a change in technology — from theaters screening projected films to the cathode ray tube of the home television, say, or the rise of YouTube and other online content in the 2000s — and that happens for a reason. Historically, executives and management use a disorienting new technology to try to justify lowering wages of their workers, and they have done so since the days of the Industrial Revolution.

As I understood it, the article just wants to explain why this is happening now, because historically it seems to happen in waves.