The Houthis are funded by Iran, get their weapons provided by Iran, and Iran provides them with targeting information.
You’d really have to warp the definition of proxy in order not to consider them a proxy to Iran (even if they are a bit of an unpredictable factor)
The headline is a bit misleading. Trump agreed to the ABC debate if Harris agrees to the Fox debate.
This is just a ploy for him to either get Harris to show up on Fox, or if she doesn’t debate him on Fox, spin it in such a way that Harris is somehow not wanting to debate him (Even though she never agreed to a Fox debate)
Do you mean the concept of up- / downvoting posts and comments in order to determine a suitable order, or do you mean the tally of all your up- / downvotes being displayed as a number on your profile.
As for the up- / downvoting, while it isn’t perfect, and it sometimes encourages people to only upvote things they agree with rather than being accurate, it is a pretty good metric to get relevant posts and comments to the top.
And as for the numerical tally… It’s easily ignored. I didn’t particularly mind it on Reddit, but I also don’t mind its absence on Lemmy.
Seeing the number go up on my individual posts gives my monkey brain enough of a dopamine boost
More like they have an ancient sewage system.
Basically, if the sewer system gets overwhelmed, for instance if there is a large amount of rainfall in a short time, then the sewage overflows directly into the Seine.
They have built infrastructure leading up to the Olympics to capture this overflow in storage tanks, but you cannot build infinitely large storage tanks so at some point it will still overflow.
And 2024 has been a very wet year thusfar, so…
Okay… So he went to Russia in 2003. Considering that the consensus in 2003 was that Russia was still on its way to becoming a democracy I am not that offended by it personally.
“Putin’s hometown” being St. Petersburg, which is the 2nd biggest city in Russia.
What is more worrying is all the things that happened since 2003.
If it’s a publicly traded company the answer is that they likely don’t believe in anything. They just do whatever the leadership believes would generate most profit, since that is what shareholders (usually) care about most.
If appearing to support progressive goals gets people to spend money in the store, then that is something that makes sense for a company like this to do. But if they stand to lose more money than they gain, for instance through boycotts, they will drop the pretence pretty quickly.
Personally I see the stance such companies take more like a reflection of general acceptance in society as a whole. If a company promotes progressive values then that would indicate that society as a whole is on average leaning more progressive.
Similarly, if companies stop supporting these values that indicates a worrying trend with regards to societal acceptance.
Just don’t fool yourself into thinking that the company itself (as an entity) really believes in anything.
(Note: This doesn’t hold for companies that aren’t publically traded. If there are no stockholders to please the leadership can let their personal view affect the company’s policy quite a bit)
Christ, my dude… They are quite literally doing everything in their power to make sure their child won’t be run into a concentration camp. Stop lecturing them on what “work and sacrifice” is.
Archival link: https://archive.is/D60ep
Link to the study: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/03/29/the-future-of-free-speech-trolls-anonymity-and-fake-news-online/
Please please please don’t vote the orange man into office… good God.
But at least is was a lemon with style… unlike the Cybertruck ;P
In the end it’s not about your absolute wage, it’s about buying power.
If you can buy the same of more with your wage, your quality of life is going up.
The comparison to US dollars is probably skewing the picture somewhat (since the US dollar is quite strong right now), but I find it hard to believe that an eight-fold decrease in value doesn’t negatively affect buying power.
https://www.thecable.ng/historical-review-nigerias-national-minimum-wage/
It looks like this would be a monthly figure. Based on this source minimum wage currently sits at 30.000 Naira ($22,45) /month.
From what I understand it is higher than what it was set at in the 80s, but the value of the Naira did drop quite a bit over time (when compared to the US dollar)
According to this website the 1981 wage would have been equivalent to $204, while the 2024 wage is equivalent to $24
Judging by the article Volkswagen is not really opposing the union effort? They appear to be okay going along with whatever the employees decide.
Unlike many employers who conduct campaigns against union membership when faced with an organizing effort, Volkswagen had remained neutral in this campaign. Its statement once the vote was announced was similarly even-handed, stating only the vote results and that “We will await certification of the results by the NLRB. Volkswagen thanks its Chattanooga workers for voting in this election.”
[…]
One reason the company was more neutral than many employers facing a union vote is the strength of unions in its home country of Germany. The main union for its plants there has a seat on the company’s board.
Be sure to make regular backups of your data.
… and using RAID is not a backup.
Keep in mind:
The new study comes at a time when the number of single person households in the U.S. has skyrocketed. In the decade from 2012 to 2022, the number of Americans living alone jumped by nearly 5 million to 37.9 million.
There is clearly a lot of people who can afford to live alone, and for some reason they appear to be at a higher risk of depression.
Dismissing the existence of this group is not going to solve that problem.
The ICJ has not said that Israel is definitively committing genocide
The [ICJ] ordered Israel to refrain from any acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts in Gaza.
“At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention,” the judges said.
The ICJ has said that there is a possibility that some of the allegations that South-Africa has brought forward might fall under the definition genocide.
That is not a definitive statement. That is saying that further investigation is justified.
I have also not seen the Israeli government openly calling for genocide or the extermination of the Palestinian people. However, I have seen plenty of instances of the Israeli government calling for the elimination of Hamas.
It could be that “Hamas” is a veiled placeholder for “Palestinians”, but it could also very well be that they are specifically talking about the terrorist group.
My problem is not the suggestion that it might be genocide. I’m not even entirely convinced that it isn’t. My problem is people claiming that it is definitely, factually, genocide, while referencing statements by courts that have never been made.
Prime-minister Rutte was literally with Netanyahu today calling for a cease-fire and for Israel tone down the attacks.
The Netherlands may be an ally of Israel, but they are hardly saying “Israel can do no wrong”
You claim that Israel is “factually” committing genocide, but there are legitimate reasons why people are hesitant to outright call what is going on in Gaza a genocide.
On Wikipedia the definition of genocide is as follows:
In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.
Key part in this definition that people generally get hung up on in the case of the Gaza, is the “intent to destroy”.
Very few people are arguing that Israel is not extremely heavy-handed with their actions in Gaza, to the point that they have likely committed war crimes against the civilians of Gaza. However it is insanely difficult to prove that there is an “intent to destroy” in full, or in part, the Palestinian people in Gaza as a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
There are plausible explanations as to why the current operation might not meet that definition.
Maybe it is a genocide… Maybe the Israeli army is merely very heavy-handedly eradicating a terrorist group, with a high civilian death toll as a side-effect… The latter is almost definitely a war crime, but it is not necessarily a genocide. We simply do not have the full picture yet.
I think editorializing actual statements made by the court to make them sound like they support the case for genocide, only serves to muddy the discussion. And I take pretty big issue with that.
Edit: Small disclaimer… I’m talking in this case about what is currently going on in Gaza.
What is going on in the West-Bank with the settlers is a different matter.
That situation I consider to be ethnic displacement, at the very least, committed by the settlers with the full support of the Israeli government.
This is a judgement by the Dutch high court, not the government.
The Dutch government is still studying the verdict, but is seemingly looking to reverse the decision.
So it’s just like Amsterdam then :)