I'm not sure if you're arguing that it being fictional is an interpretation or that its demise from the ire of the Gods is an interpretation.

If it's the former, you are incorrect. The single best primary source being his own protege and student Aristotle who also makes it clear the whole thing is didactic invention. (There are debates that some individual events within the story are inspired by actual events in Egypt and Athens, but its existence is never presented as fact. The entire idea that this was some historical account came mostly from a judge writing his own history books in the 19th century.)

This is also not debatable due to translation. It's Plato. The best scholars of all time in both language and history have studied this, literally for centuries. There is not any serious or scholarly debate about his intentions with this story. And multiple, equally capable translations of Aristotle corroborate that.

If you're talking about the destruction of Atlantis, it's been too long for me to argue that specifically, but the idea that it was divine punishment is the prevailing view of that story.

Plato did not suggest ancient Atlantis existed. He was very clear that he was illustrating a hypothetical "great society" to discuss his views on effective and beneficent government.

When he discussed it sinking it was a divine punishment from the gods of Olympus because they had strayed from a righteous path. All of it is meant to be a parable.

You mean "bell-end"?

Right on, this isn't about Ukraine's restraint, it's about Russia's psychopathy.

First, You rock. You changed the context of your actions based on new information and have decided to change your approach going forward, and you're honest about it. All political discourse should occur at this level of self-awareness and transparency.

And just so you know I commiserate....I volunteered for Blegojevich.

I always wanted a space like that to make a sweet pad for my dog, with a fire-hydrant lamp, photos on the wall of his dog friends and comfy bed, small corner fireplace etc...

The way your question is worded makes me think you're not necessarily a rider but are just curious, or you're a newer rider and haven't gotten into these kinds of bikes yet. So if what I'm saying seems over-simplified obvious I apologize. I'm answering as accurately as I can for what I believe to be a less experienced rider. If I'm wrong, feel free to tell me and express any displeasure you have with my comment.

Imagine a triangle of sport bikes, cruiser/ touring bikes and dirt bikes. Sport bikes are light, fast, and have a very aggressive, and often uncomfortable riding position. Their job is to go very fast on well maintained, paved roadways.

Cruiser / touring bikes, are made to be comfortable and practical for long trips in a variety of weather, but still mostly on paved roads. Some are fast, most are kind of medium for speed and acceleration.

"Dirt bikes" are made to do well on anything other than pavement. Mud, first, gravel etc. They should be light weight, have good ground clearance for rocks and uneven terrain, have an upright riding position for visibility and leverage, and a lot of suspension travel for bumps and such.

I have a "Sport-tourer", it can be very fast, somewhat light, and has a riding position between aggressive and sporty and upright and comfortable. It's made for paved roads, and still has just enough room to put 2-3 days of clothes in storage. It's in the middle of the sport to cruiser/touring leg of the triangle.

And Adventure bike is in the middle of the cruiser/touring to dirt bike leg of the triangle. You can carry clothes and such, have great off-road properties, stay on the light side. There are some fast adventure bikes, but the best ones understand that too much power can be a real downside off-road. It's designed to use paved roads only to get you to the trails, plains, paths that you made the trip for in the first place, and let you stay there for a weekend.

Hope that's helpful.

FWIW, I had a subscription over a decade ago. I can't say I ever thought of it as "Left", it was at best, corporate center. But it definitely has gone more right as it has also gone more sensationalist. They partnered with Daily Beast for a while, and then were sold to IBT media, an international "news and Information" conglomerate. I think your memories are from the old hard journalism days, and they have gone back to corporate, but corporate-right.

If we're going that far, then no radio or person either. Black holes have disappeared from Hawking radiation, protons have all decayed, and the distribution of energy is so even and so rarified no exchange can happen, so literally nothing can happen.

If we allow a magic radio, we can allow a magic air bubble.

There's still plenty of time for Rockstar to make this a mission in GTAVI.

If this functions to poll users broadly, then count another one for NOT federating. I came to Lemmy to not have my feed dominated by a tsunami of corporate junk curated by one of the worst influences in modern society. And if the counter argument is that I can block their content, then you can go join threads. I have no desire to be on a service where the majority of other users are constanly being fed crap from Meta and then interacting here, even if I can't see the initial influence. I can go elsewhere, sure, and will if they federate, but I like it so far and would rather not. But consider, at least, the kind of thing .world will become if the only people here are people who think, "Hey, maybe Zuck's new project won't be so bad!"

Yes! I wonder how a company working with Cambridge analytica to start a war, and influence elections worldwide, who sold children's personal information illegaly in EU, and gleefully partcipates in the Prism surveillance program, would be? 🤔 I mean it's not like they just gutted their staff trying to deal with misinformation for the 24 election. We simply can't predict how they might behave!