You can also get carrots and potatoes from zombie drops.

I had never seen that before, thank you

From the Wikipedia page, emphasis mine:

In the United States, a red flag law (named after the idiom red flag meaning “warning sign“; also known as a risk-based gun removal law,[1]) is a gun law that permits a state court to order the temporary seizure of firearms (and other items regarded as dangerous weapons, in some states) from a person who they believe may present a danger. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[2] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[3][4] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[5][6][7]

Intuitively, it makes sense the police would not be able to search someone’s home for guns without a judge’s permission. It would be hard to say that there was a compelling emergency just from going through things that someone had said or things that had been said about them.

I didn’t see a federal supreme court case that ruled on red flag laws specifically, but it sounded like there were some state supreme court rulings that found them unconstitutional. So it is at least contentious whether they meet the strict scrutiny standard or not.

C’mon, he probably is leaving important details out, but “if people treat him badly, he must deserve it” is hardly fair.

The government is allowed to suppress your constitutional rights in cases where it’s narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest (the strict scrutiny standard). This may seem suspect, but it allows the government to do things like prevent people from bringing guns into schools or planes, or spreading private information or harmful lies about others, or being overtly loud when their neighbors are trying to sleep. It does require a high burden of proof from the potential violating body, so it’s not done casually.

For red flag laws, I imagine temporarily seizing the guns of someone who a judge is convinced is a significant danger to themselves or others would meet this standard. From what the other commenter said, it sounds like it isn’t done casually in practice. We are missing parts of the story that may make it seem prudent.

my ducks barn owl chicks? in a row. ordered. disciplined. behaving predictably.

your ducks kestrel chicks? scattered. in disarray. waddling aimlessly. desperate for a leader to impose structure.

pathetic.

Yeah they are $3.85 (before tax) for a pack of 4 from the Aldi near me. And they taste good too. Of course they are going to be more expensive at a restaurant, but that’s true for nearly everything.

The first and third are intuitive observations to the point students should be aware of them even if they haven’t given them much thought before. The second might require a bit more consideration but even then it’s easy to point out how heavier things take more force to move as a simple example.

Coming up with some of the formulas in Physics by yourself would be hard but at least for kinematics it’s easy to observe relationships. You’ve already been using their ideas your whole life, you just start describing what’s involved in what you see and do all the time.

It’s sad to see this sort of toxicity. People are neither just good or just bad, and so no one should have to to justify their right to not be killed. Human life is precious, even if they vote Republican.

ITT: arguments about the Ship of Theseus

I used to use libby but the popular books at my library had months long waiting times so I just pirate now. It means I can read on my own time. Plus, I can get the audiobook versions and work/drive/shop/whatever while “reading”. It’s a game changer.

Temtem uses cards that circle around the creature when capturing iirc. I thought it worked well.

The AfD did do really well last election, but it was also just classified as a right-wing extremist organization by Germany’s equivalent of the FBI. That means more monitoring and possibly reduction or removal of public funding. That should hopefully be an obstacle for them in the future.

Reading through this, some of these criticisms seem unwarranted. Like for problem 1:

The assumption that consumer willingness to pay slightly more will fundamentally change the deeply entrenched structure of this industry — and its merciless exploitation of animals — is absurd.

I don’t think Kurzgesagt ever made the claim that consumer preference would actually bring about change as described. When they detailed how small increases in the price of animal products could offset a dramatic improvement in the suffering of farmed animals, it wasn’t to suggest this was likely to happen or how. Rather, it emphasizes that the cruelty of factory farming is particularly obscene now. It points out that we as a society support insane cruelty even for very meager benefit.

Problem 2:

In the conclusion of the video, Kurzgesagt suggests that viewers should “maybe avoid the worst torture meat — at least sometimes.” … How can you recognize horrific violence — and then casually brush it aside?

A charitable reading could take that line to be cheeky and ironic, like A Modest Proposal. But if it is sincere, then I agree it’s much too compromising for something that demands much larger change. And if not, then it should be made more obvious.

Problem 3:

From start to finish, the video treats plant-based eating as unrealistic — and, absurdly, doesn’t even mention it as a possible solution.

Switching to a vegan diet is entirely reasonable to expect for an individual. But this video examined the current issue from a societal level, and expecting the majority of the population to change this much quickly is absurd to offer as a solution. The first problem in fact criticises the unlikelihood of a very minor change (from the consumer’s perspective) being achieved. Such a large cultural change would take generations of incremental improvement. The solutions to prevent the most egregious torture are focussed on because they could reasonably be done with a few targeted bills in a near-future political climate.

Problem 4:

Kurzgesagt has explored [topics on the broader destruction caused by animal agriculture] in past videos. So why ignore them here?

This seems to answer itself. The related topics are a part of other, more dedicated videos. A Kurzgesagt video is a short-form summary of an interesting topic or question, and much of their appeal is how approachable they are. They have a limited scope by design, and that is part of why they manage to be both accurate and popular. There are generally many resources available to people who would like to learn more after an introduction, and this is certainly no exception. It seems harsh to criticise a video for not being something it isn’t attempting to be.

Problem 5:

Kurzgesagt claims things are “getting better” — a feel-good statement that misrepresents reality.

I agree it’s too broad a claim to make, but they did go into by what metrics things show an optomistic trend. They should have mentioned these things and left overall judgement to the viewer.

Problem 6:

The video uses outdated and oversimplified price calculations

IIRC they stated how they came up with the values they had. These were estimates. Again, they are unjustifiably expecting too much depth for this format.

Problem 7:

The video defines “decent” conditions in a way that still includes these brutal practices — raising the question: what could possibly be considered decent about such treatment?

Again, they explain in the video how they determine their standards. Decent doesn’t mean good. Veganism is far from the consensus in society, so of course they allowed for more controversial practices. Meat eaters are going to care much less about exploitation, and I think this is meant more to meet them halfway and convince them that even if they are unwilling to abolish exploitation outright, they can at least afford to have a paltry minimum standard against basically pointless cruelty.

Overall it feels like the author wants more of a long-form video essay targeted at an audience already receptive to vegan ideas. The video was instead intended to be a short exploration into small steps society could make for considerable harm reduction regarding animal welfare in meat industries aimed at general audiences. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

True, but there is thought to be a finite amount of matter + energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. And since it is spreading out from an original dense point, it stands to reason that there would be a vacuum area that it has not reached yet.

The problem is that then you need the government’s permission to procreate. There’s always the valid concern that the government would prevent you from having children to remove some undesirable trait from the population and justify it as being a danger to a child. I know you described basic competency skills, but there would always exist a very credible threat of it being politicized.

In fact, this already happens for things like queer couples being rejected for adopting children or the Uyghur population being quietly genocided in China. And Eugenics was historically practiced such that criminals would be sterilized as part of their punishment.

It’s worth pointing out that governments already intervene with unqualified parents by removing the child from the household. Shifting the burden of proof from the government needing to show neglect to parents needing to prove themselves worthy is a dangerous amount of authority to cede to a centralized, corruptible power.

Also, it’s not clear how you handle unlicensed parents. People are going to have unsafe sex no matter how illegal you make it. Would you push for preemptively sterilizing everyone and trusting it can be reversed after a license is acquired? Forcing abortions? Confiscating the child after birth?

Another one apparently being that you can maintain power through an alt after mod abuse gets your other account demoted.

Here’s the context for just one of the things you did as Beaver. You should be held accountable for your actions.

IIRC that community has strict ideas about what sources are allowed, and the moderation is consistent about enforcing that even if the written rules are vague. Not sure why people are saying dailymail isn’t a news source just because it’s low quality. A bad news outlet is still a news outlet. So the mod should have given a better reason for removing it, but I agree with it being removed.

I’ve seen people choose to define racism to only include institutional racism, effectively preventing the privileged race from being victimized. They would insist a slur against white people can’t be racist.