When opportunity presents itself, say yes

"upgrade"

The existence of Harambe implies the existence of Halalbe

That $5 million isn't for you

Bigger isn't necessarily better

Is this real?

PS: no

https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/02/10/genital-verification-dfw-airport-sign/

https://www.lonestarlive.com/news/2025/02/electronic-genital-verification-hoax-in-dallas-airport-bathroom-prompts-investigation.html

What do you mean by physical proof?

Some history is known by digging up physical stones n bones. Some is known by digging up texts.

There are multiple texts dated to the 1st century that all corroborate the story that a person called Jesus was crucified around 33AD

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

They've basically banned anonymous accounts. Their whole thing was anonymity.

You cut off the recipe, this is useless to me.

How much general legitimacy does the regime have there? Do people not want to overthrow/replace it by this point?

Well it would be weird if I used someone else's toe to do it.

Facebook tried and we scoffed.

It's called the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy of dealing with threats. Microsoft have been endorsing Linux recently for this reason.

Basic physics says satellites using Ku-band or whatever they use can't compete with fibre.

Satellite internet has its uses like for ships at sea.

Mamma mia!

This isn't even a good shitpost

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241108-its-not-close-israel-committing-genocide-concludes-wikipedia-ending-editorial-debate/

‘It’s not close’ – Israel committing genocide concludes Wikipedia ending editorial debate

Wikipedia has officially added “Gaza genocide” to its “List of Genocides” page, marking a major shift in how Israel’s aggression on the besieged enclave is being documented on the world’s largest online encyclopaedia.

The addition, which now appears as the first entry due to the list’s reverse chronological order, comes after months of extensive debate among the platform’s editors. On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”

The entry for “List of genocides,” Wikipedia states that “Israel has been accused by experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of Gaza during the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.” The page goes on to list the death toll in Gaza while mentioning that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians killed are civilians.

The decision to include the Gaza genocide in the list followed Wikipedia’s formal Request for Comment process, which began in July. Editors supporting the inclusion argued that it met the page’s criteria of events “classified by significant scholarship” as genocide. They also pointed out that the Gaza situation had stronger scholarly consensus than some existing entries on the list, such as the Darfur and Rohingya genocides.

British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the article’s inclusion. “Based on the strength of the arguments … and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is.”

Marshall concluded his ruling with the straightforward statement: “We follow the scholars.”

According to Wikipedia, events qualify as a genocide if they have been classified as such by “significant scholarship.”

Wikipedia’s decision comes amid wider discussions about source reliability, particularly regarding Israel and Palestine. In a related move, the platform’s editors recently voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the subject, adding it to their list of banned and partially banned sources.

I don't know if I'd call putting a comma between subject and predicate a 'cult'. It's certainly annoying, but not a cult.

Are these screenshots fake or are search engines saying stuff like this? (I don't use google)

"Please don't talk about politics in the workplace. It is unprofessional."

Honestly a pretty good outcome so far from their nonviolent action.

Well done.