That article seems very new-world-centric

Europe, Mainland Asia & Africa all have native small cats and so the birds and small mammals have evolved to deal with them, the issue is that in Australia & the Americas they haven't and so that's where all the risk of species actually being wiped out is - in the old world the cats largely just replace the larger predators that humans have killed off in the ecosystem

I've found Gemini overwhelmingly terrible at pretty much everything, it responds more like a 7b model running on a home pc or a model from two years ago than a medium commercial model in how it completely ignores what you ask it and just latches on to keywords... It's almost like they've played with their tokenisation or trained it exclusively for providing tech support where it links you to an irrelevant article or something

That or Methamphetamine mainly, most likely

I think it's more that a lot of people only think of badly done makeup and see well done makeup as natural beauty, which it enhances rather than contrasting with

Of course someone with clown-face-adjacent levels of makeup is going to look worse, but if done to make the skin look natural but smoother, eyes look natural but bigger and features natural but better defined then yes, I think very few people will find that less attractive

the data is clearly fucked given the whole UK mess, and given it's all either small countries, authoritarian hellholes or both which have their country flag I'm inclined to believe it's a "no data" placeholder

Bad bot

"saved 87%" my brother in christ you have not even mentioned the main story here, only the context for why the story is so bleak... Without it it looks uplifting...

https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per-stream/

They charge 30%

Which is what Apple charges (and Spotify complain), and what Steam charges, and what GoG charges, and what Epic charges, and what Google Play charge, and what the company I work for charges

For a digital media marketplace, 30% has been settled on for the industry standard whether it's reasonable or not.

Frankly at that pay grade in that industry you're either going to work for a company that makes money selling ads/data, in high frequency trading or a hedge fund, and the latter two are objectively more parasitical - at least content creators and media publishers get a cut from ads, rather than all the money either staying in the company or going to their competitors, with the only instance of their business affecting normal people being when they crash the economy

Boredom buster/subway surfer on the screen while technical explanations are being given and headlines/weather/ads/whatever else being on the screen during the news being the same thing I think?

It depends on where you're from and more so what you feel.

If you feel it's an equivalent substitute, then it is for you and whoever else feels that way.

Personally I was brought up in the UK where queer in reference to LBGT (either as an insult or not) is largely an American loanword and if you asked the majority of people to define it they'd give you something along the lines of nauseas/slightly unwell or peculiar. That said, there are many Brits who identify as queer which is just as fine as people who identify as gay, which can mean either a masculine homosexual or a catch all LGBT+ term in British English but AFAIK is pretty much exclusively the former in the US?

Where are my boys þ ð ƿ and ſ at though???

1890s right?