So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don't have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: "yeah but Russia does bad".

Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.

But nothing is falling, all of the temperature records are rising.

I see what you're saying. I had taken the use to mean the situation is tumbling, not the temperatures. But upon a closer reading (of the title specifically) it seems a more reasonable interpretation of the word tumble is:

Climate records tumble,

The object of the verb 'tumble' is "climate records". That is, the climate records are tumbling. A tumbling record is one which has fallen over and been surpassed. So what they're saying by using the word "tumble" is: previous climate records have fallen over and been surpassed.

I do agree it's a weird word choice, but I don't think it's wrong or even playing on a potential uncommon secondary definition. It's not saying temperatures have tumbled, but rather records have tumbled.

That's the United States of America.

There seem to be three categories for how podcasts deal with ad spots.

Some podcasts mark their ads inline by using Chapter Markers. For example, ATP marks its ads by putting them in a new chapter with a name like "Ad: X". In theory, you could have a player that skips any chapter who's name begins with "Ad: ", though I don't know of any existing apps that do that. Unfortunately, the number of podcasts using chapter markers seems to be a small portion of the podcasts I listen to, so this wouldn't be very useful.

Another method that could work on some podcasts that don't use chapter markers is identifying a delineating tone. Using ATP as an example again, every ad spot starts with the same jingle, and ends with the same jingle. In theory, an app could skip the delineated sections. Mind you, this would require work from the user to set up (or it could be crowdsourced): you would have to tell the app what specific sound snippet delineates the ad read. Luckily, many podcasts seem to be structured in this way, with a clear audio cue to delineate ad spots.

Then, you have really free-form podcasts where the hosts may just say, in everyday speech, something like "time for ads", and the ads will insert. Sometimes it's always the same phrase (e.g., the use of the phrase "the money zone" on MBMBAM), but that's not always the case (e.g., there is seemingly no consistent verbiage in the Aunty Donna Podcast). This category is the most difficult to deal with.

In summary, I don't know of any existing apps that enable skipping ads for any of these three categories. Of the three categories, one is very easy to implement, one less easy, and one quite difficult. All potential solutions would require a shared/crowd-sourced database of which category each podcast falls into, at the least.

So in order to discourage crossing at non-official crossings, the only answer is passive barriers.

Completely visible barriers would do the trick.

You've somehow, again, managed to miss the point: the purpose was not just deterrence, the purpose was to hide them and cause unexpected harm. I'm not using booby trap to evoke any legality relating to the word; I'm using the word to evoke the horrendously inhumane use of hidden weapons meant to cause harm to those who accidentally stumble upon them.

You're defending a horrific practice in the guise of it being a necessary evil, when in all actuality, it's just one horrific out of many not-horrific implementations of something that you're overtly in favor of.

Seems a bit silly to decide that “capitalism” is the majority contributor to climate change when the country that produces the most greenhouse gases is only “pretty capitalist” doesn’t it? If capitalism is the major contributor, why don’t more capitalist country produce more greenhouse gases?

That's not necessarily the case. The pollution comes from where manufacturing is, not necessarily where consumption is. The demand is coming from capitalist countries.

Edit: To account for this, we can look at per-capita consumption-based emissions (thanks to @boonhet@lemm.ee for the data link).

There's a new propaganda department at the Pentagon that's just been re-formed, the "Perception Management" office,

“Perception management” came to prominence during the Reagan administration[^1], which used the term to describe its propaganda efforts. [...] On March 1, 2022, the Pentagon established a new office with similar goals to the one once deemed too controversial to remain open. [...] its responsibilities include overseeing and coordinating the various counter-disinformation efforts being conducted by the military, which can include the U.S.’s own propaganda abroad.

In case you think the name is of no import, the Department of Defense's own official dictionary defines "perception management" as

[a]ctions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning.

Let's look at a definition of "propaganda",

A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people.

That looks about 100% on the nose, doesn't it?

They have a history of producing propaganda and misinformation (with the excuse being "to counter enemy disinformation"[^2]), and they weren't shy talking about it,

The question is whether the Pentagon and military should undertake an official program that uses disinformation to shape perceptions abroad. [...] The military has faced these tough issues before. Nearly three years ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion. [...] Pentagon and military officials directly involved in the debate say that such a secret propaganda program, for example, could include planting news stories in the foreign press or creating false documents and Web sites translated into Arabic as an effort to discredit and undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that preach anti-American principles. [...] However, a senior military officer said that without clear guidance from the Pentagon, the military's psychological operations, information operations and public affairs programs are "coming together on the battlefield like never before, and as such, the lines are blurred."

Mind you, I've only touched on some of their work in the very recent past. There's an even larger body of evidence of the USA's use of propaganda in the slightly more distant past. I only gave the Wikipedia page on propaganda in the United States a brief skim, but it at least touches on (and links out to) some of the big picture items; of note,

In the United States, propaganda is spread by both government and media entities.

[^1]: "In the battle of perception management, where the enemy is clearly using the media to help manage perceptions of the general public, our job is not perception management but to counter the enemy's perception management," said the chief Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita. (Source) [^2]: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/28/the-victory-of-perception-management/

Only your instance knows your IP and what links you visited. But everyone can see your votes.

You're right, the transatlantic train should be good enough for anyone. Who needs planes when a train gets you across the ocean with much less pollution!

No need to be aggressive mate. Your replies are rather antagonistic.

Xenophobic fearmongering serves nobody.

Should we also avoid the Linux kernel, since it's Finnish, and Finland participates in the largest global surveillance apparatus with the USA? There's absolutely no reason to assume the distribution is any less secure or any more likely to be malicious simply due to it being developed in China or by Chinese.

Moreover, it's open-source. Use the same logic you should apply to open-source software before you accuse it of being malicious: look at the code and prove it.

It's used as an excuse. If people weren't armed, they'd find another excuse. That's what I mean by not addressing the underlying problem of police brutality and abuse of power. Also, they'll always say they thought someone had a gun even when they know almost for certain the person didn't, because they know you'll buy it.

This is just a replay of the "Oh He's Just An Innocent Idiot" nonsense that was so popular around George Bush. People would say he's an idiot and that he didn't realize what he was doing, and that got him off the hook for the absolute atrocities he committed against not only the people of several countries around the world but also against the people of his own country. Don't give Biden the same treatment; don't let him off easy.

If it was a mistake, it's not a minor one; major "mistakes" like this warrant corrections after the fact, either from Biden directly or from White House communications. Since he hasn't corrected it, it's safe to assume it was intended.