Sometimes things look simple but have complex knock-on effects, and it takes an expert to notice that there's anything that might be a problem. At least none times or of ten, there's no problem and it looks like someone's wasting their time, but it occasionally saves a much bigger headache later.

As well as forcing porn sites to ensure all their users are adults, the Online Safety Act also added a bunch of mostly sensible rules about what you can do when your users are children that go beyond what the GDPR does.

They pretty regularly use the phrases occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem - lots of articles show up if you search BBC News for occupied palestine with these phrases in articles that mention Palestine in the headline. I think this specific complaint is possibly just a clash with how they specify place names, only mentioning the country with nothing about its status in the headline and then specifying the location further at the same time as they say that it's occupied.

We just don't have much use for data about how frostbite affects people who've already been tortured first.

The context: the UK ended slavery within the empire by taking out a huge loan to buy all the slaves in the empire, then freeing them. The loan wasn't fully paid off until recently, so UK taxpayers were effectively paying for money that had been given to slave owners. However, it quickly and decisively put a stop to slavery in a lot of the world without much fuss or objection, when it otherwise could have triggered wars.

I've had an unreasonable number of arguments against people who seemed to think animal was a synonym for mammal. Thankfully, we're now in an era where you can look it up and show them now mobile data is cheap, so it's become a winnable argument.

It's worth taking a moment to remember that PETA, despite not being perfect, has been the victim of a smear campaign by the meat industry, so every mistake they make is amplified and every policy that isn't immediately obviously sensible is reframed to look as bad as possible. E.g. you'll often see that PETA-run dog shelters euthanise a lot more dogs than the average shelter, leaving out the context that plenty of no-kill shelters send all their sick dogs to a PETA shelter to be euthanised so they can claim not to have killed the dog, but that skews the statistics. You'll also see news reports about PETA abducting a pet dog and killing it, which leave out the fact that it's one past event being reported over and over as if it's news each time, and that it was a much more nuanced situation than most people think. A pet dog's collar fell off while it was unattended playing with a pack of strays, which animal control had been dispatched to round up, and then sent to PETA to be put down, then a series of clerical errors meant animal control told the owners they never had the dog and told PETA that the dog had already been held waiting to see if an owner claimed it, so it was already dead by the time the owners tracked down where it had really ended up.

He's just worried about the power bill. It costs a lot to heat and light an infinite number of rooms.

From what I saw, the 'call to murder' was someone having kill all zionists in their username, and that only makes sense as a real call to violence if we're supposed to take everyone's username seriously and literally. That would be a very weird world to be in, as then we'd have to accept that we're reading posts written by Star Trek characters come to life, inanimate objects, and various bodily fluids. Without evidence of something worth taking more seriously, at best this looks like the admin team doing something silly, and obviously certain groups of Lemmy users will interpret it less charitably and as the LW admin team being pro-genocide. Neither is a good look.

He was found guilty of medical malpractice after gene editing babies by treating their embryos with CRISPR/Cas9. He claims that he was trying to make them resistant to HIV, and that medical ethics are preventing cures from being discovered, but his critics say that we know CRISPR is too unreliable to use on a genome the size of a human's, and is more likely to introduce dangerous mutations than apply the intended change, hence why no one else has done this before.

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

To go one better, there's http://isthereanydeal.com/, which tracks prices across a bunch of vetted key retailers (i.e. companies that buy wholesale keys from publishers and sell them to users, but not grey-market or dodgy sites) so you can see where's cheapest and get notified of discounts etc.

Why check GreenManGaming and Steam (and potentially a bunch of their competitors, too) when you could check one site and know who's best?

I've accidentally made this read like an ad, but they've not paid me to say this, I just always check the site before buying games, and have either saved loads of money by doing so over the years, or have ended up buying a bunch of things I'd have ignored on the grounds they were too expensive otherwise. I don't know in which direction, but it's definitely changed the amount I've spent on games over the last ten years.

Under maritime law, she was a victim of kidnapping and piracy, and was never arrested as it happened outside Israel's territorial waters, where it has no authority to have a blockade.

I question the choice of sauce bottle. That's clearly sriracha, and as someone who doesn't consider themselves a hot sauce person, it's not hot, it just contains chillies. I don't think anyone who goes back for seconds after melting their face would melt their face with sriracha.

He'd already contributed to humanity by writing the definition of wanker for the Oxford English Dictionary by the age of 28, though.

Sometimes the curtains are blue because the artist likes blue.

Sometimes the curtains are blue because the artist's childhood bedroom had blue curtains and they subconsciously remind the artist of some aspect of their youth, but they've no idea that's why they wanted to draw blue curtains as they were replaced with blinds when they were pretty young, and they've forgotten about having had blue curtains, so if asked, would say they just liked blue.

And sometimes the curtains are blue because the artist wanted a blue background for space curtains, but didn't have enough time to add the stars, planets, spaceships and aliens.

He was charged with (effectively) taking a sawn-off shotgun across state lines, which he didn't do as it was a full-size rifle, and second degree murder, which requires homicide while committing another crime, but the other charge fell through, so there was no other crime. He probably would have been found guilty of something if he'd been charged with crimes he did rather than ones he didn't, but the prosecutor fucked up, whether by incompetence or because they wanted to ensure he got off after nominally going through a trial so justice could be claimed to have been done.

You can get loads of frames per second with cloud gaming, just not necessarily from the right second.

All of Ayn Rand's own examples of rational self interest were irrational and against her interests. It's such an easy philosophy to mock because it's just really stupid. True rational self interest would involve creating cooperative structures that give a safety net if anything goes wrong just like how it's rational to get home insurance even if you don't expect to burn your house down. Anyone drawing Randian conclusions can't have thought of rational self interest.

It's also stethoscope theory, which is much more plausible:

It's not self-defence to shoot people if the only reason they're approaching you is that you pointed a gun at them or someone else and they're attempting to disarm you because it appears that you're about to shoot someone or just shot someone. Otherwise anyone with a firearm can just point it at whoever and if they react at all, have free reign to shoot them. In fact, it's illegal to point a gun at someone else in the first place unless they're already attacking you (or in some states have entered your property), and Rittenhouse pointing a gun at someone else was the trigger for the whole incident. If he'd been charged for pointing a gun at people, then the second-degree murder charge would have stuck, as self defence isn't a defence against second-degree murder (otherwise a home invader could claim self defence if they shot the homeowner when confronted).