It’s not from the machine because I clean that as well. And then all clothes should get the smell and they don’t. It’s a riddle inside an enigma wrapped in confused consumers.

The problem with the question is us, the consumers. When is the last time you sat down to read the instructions in great detail? A cursory look at the recommended temperature maybe and off we go. Meanwhile a labcoat has produced the greatest formula to clean everything at room temperature. If only we used this much water and these many spin cycles. But no one read the back of the container.

Where I am at, people tend to not do a hot cycle or if they need it they go to a launderette. The liquid works okay on clothes in a cold cycle. But bed sheets and towels start smelling if they don’t get at least a 40C/100F cycle every once in a while. And I do that one on powder because it was the only one that wasn’t designed to be for cold wash only. So to summarize this extremely boring anecdote: it depends where you are, what your machine is like, and probably on local water quality as well. Or: we’ll never find a good answer here that satisfies the demands of the scientific method.

The Scunthorpe problem strikes again.

There are laws and case law that make criticism of Israel harder than in other places. Post WW2 pro-Nazi and antisemetic speech was basically declared hate speech. Courts have taken a narrow view of what counts as antisemetic. There are in excess of six million reasons for that hard swing in the other direction.

So I would say the long version is this: you can criticize Israel but you need to pay close attention to how you say it. Criticizing the existence of the Jewish state is possible as well but you need to weigh your words even more carefully.

Moderators on an internet forum may take an even narrower approach to avoid any sort of legal trouble. And thus continues a chilling effect.

Freedom of speech is a tricky subject. Post WW2 the US had the influence to export their constitutional values, such as a first amendment, to Japan and West Germany. In both cases they punted. It’s not without some irony when I say opinions on how to establish freedom of speech in a democratic constitution vary.

On the one hand, any negative Melon Usk headline fills me with joy just like all the shit flung at Meta. On the other hand, my empathy for people living on yachts who get effed by this change particularly knows bounds.

Poland - if they didn’t just forget it - may be excluded because it borders Ukraine where they use Starlink for military reasons. Maybe they preserve bandwidth or try to deter roaming tourism of rich people thrill seekers or something like that. Monaco is missing because that’s basically France. It’s about 4 klicks across, the satellites fly at about 500 km overhead - that’s probably a rounding error. Cyprus may either be too small as well or it’s excluded because it is a divided island.

Technically, “the Holy Spirit” isn’t a proper noun. That’s because it contains an adjective also. Personally, I wouldn’t capitalize any of those terms. The head of the Catholic church only really when talking about it as a title in front of the assumed name, Pope Leo. Somebody’s style guide may have them capitalize all nouns with religious notoriety. That’s a style choice then rather than grammatical necessity.

Also, grammar is the attempt at formulating rules about how people talk. Meaning the talking came first and then somebody tried to codify it. That means there is virtually no grammar rule that doesn’t come with at least one exception. Learning when to use an article or not, when it should be the indefinite or the definite one, is killing students who come from languages that don’t use articles at all. And in some cases also those who speak other article-infested languages. That’s because it doesn’t make any sense and you had to grow up being corrected by other speakers to get this mostly right. It is convention more than clean cut rules.

If Lemmy is garbage, then why make a new account to whine about it on Lemmy?

You need to work on your anger management too. Your tone here has me thinking you were banned for a reason. Be respectful.

If you don’t live there, legally or not, you don’t have to do it.

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

Why are you the authority to change how people talk? At the risk of sounding harsh: no one cares what you think.

This is a repeat of https://lemmy.world/post/50601285

I’m not debating you on fashion choices. I’m pointing out that you yourself use class to describe folks. You can’t fight against the class system when you write of “working class” yourself. And in a way that answers your question: it is ingrained in people.

(the typical getup of a white, working-class British lad)

You perpetuate it yourself.

Call me cynical but I do think an outlet called oil price dot com may not be entirely impartial when they report on this. That is not to say what they wrote here is wrong; I wouldn’t know. It just has a touch of pot and kettle about it.

Since the power networks are linked and European countries import and export electricity, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that next to renewables power from gas stepped in to fill the nuclear gap. And the price for natural gas is often linked to a certain other commodity price.

The origin of left and right come from the French revolution. In the first assembly, the pro-monarchists were sitting on the right and the “let’s try something different” folks sat on the left. So strictly speaking, the US political spectrum was entirely on the left (until a narcissist was elected and wouldn’t mind being crowned king).

What’s in a label? The problem is the lack of debate. This team think that makes every idea from the other side stupid by default. A parliamentary system will fail when people stop talking to each other.

And socialism is really only a red rag with a yellow hammer and a sickle in the US. It’s your cold war hangover. Socialists or social democrats exist in most democracies.

Per your definition, the effects of loyalty are always per se negative. I don’t doubt that in many situations this is true. I don’t think it’s always true. And a lot of it has to do with how we socialize. We need strong bonds. On a purely rational level, I’d be inclined to agree with you. We aren’t very rational though.

If my hypothetical friend, out of the blue, got drunk, got behind the wheel, and ran somebody over, many people might turn away. If I stayed by their side, helped them arrange themselves in this new life of guilt, helped them make restitutions, and kept them from sliding into isolation and depression, my loyalty could be seen as a force for good in a bad situation. I could still donate to cover the victim’s medical costs or funeral. There are bonds that keep us together even when we effed up.

Now, if I had willfully ignored all signs of alcohol abuse before, I think I’d be back on your page. So what I’m saying is we can create scenarios of loyalty with good outcomes. So the categorical dismissal as something negative isn’t true.

How would you feel about the fact that they made the Jim Carrey movie and put it where you could see it?

I don’t think the Morisetteian irony of watching a movie that’s equally fucked up in its premise as you found out your life is would move the needle much. The rug would’ve been pulled out from under you and this wouldn’t cause more than a wry bored smile a couple of weeks later when the shock has subsided a bit.

As far as I’m concerned, that and PIC S2 NEVER HAPPENED!

Ro’s decision is understandable if you consider her life experiences.

The Maquis are not created in universe to be good or bad. They are not black or white, they are gray all the way. Because that’s how all freedom fighters/terrorists are in their time. They get their marks from history. Some upstart colonists in the 1770s tend to get a more favorable score from history. For the communists in Cuba it depends who you ask.

Reality is a clusterfuck and politics is the art of what’s possible. No one designed the situation to place colonists on these planets, to have a war in the neighborhood, and then have to come up with a compromise to end the killing. It happened and now they have to deal with it. I’d like to see the SWOT analysis of each colonized planet, just to see if they considered risking setting off the stereotypical fascist race in the neighborhood by their presence. That is to say the colonists may not be entirely blameless either. But regardless, the federation made an agreement to end the killing in a big war. They drew a line on a map and that’s never not caused other problems in history. In the middle east, in Korea, in Europe, etc. It’s often the best solution to end or prevent the fighting but it’s still a shit solution that doesn’t solve all problems. Indeed, one might argue it may only be a temporary reprieve. So the Maquis are borne out of gray, they do things that are gray, often more on the darker spectrum, and then the authorities come in and also react in dark gray when they poison an entire planet’s atmosphere. The writers even threw in some native American tribes having to relocate or accept Cardassian rule to perfect the clusterfuck.

The way some of the Maquis stories are told in late TNG and then DS9 is not the best Trek has to offer. But if you zoom out, the overall situation they’ve created is realistic and believable. The Maquis are ambiguous, the role of the federation is ambiguous. It’s all just gray. And while I don’t think it’s super unrealistic that they just get wiped out by the Ketracel White addicts, I thought it’s a lazy writers’ end to a great scenario they had created.

How is this mildly infuriating? If this Weekend at Bernie’s vibe turns out to be true, that wouldn’t be mildly infuriating. If it’s the story of an evil politician clinging to life like dog shit to your sneakers, it also isn’t just mildly infuriating. And if it is the story of an old man surely not long for this world, this isn’t infuriating at all.

It’s a stressful situation, a funeral. It seems insurmountable before it happens and once it gets going it becomes mostly manageable. I get why you don’t want the stress and all the family dynamics and the religious top layer.

That being said: yes, you are unreasonable. If you like going to funerals, there is something wrong with you. Nobody likes it. For much the same reasons as yours. That’s the baseline.

Think of it as a game and try to avoid talking to all the family members you don’t like. And since it will be your father’s funeral, you have the perfect excuse to have a thousand mile stare and be monosyllabic. And then you treat yourself when it’s over.

There is no need to make your father sad now. Tell him you’ll attend. Because it matters to him. Even if you have no intention to show up, which you should though. He’ll either come back to haunt you from the afterlife (slim chance) or the only people who will maintain a grudge are your living relatives. That’s the bed you’ll be making for yourself and you can avoid a whole lot of additional shit in the future by investing half a day and attend the goddamn funeral.