The rise of progressivism has nothing to do with corporations decorating themselves with the relevant messages where it suits them. That's just marketing. You see that in companies who championed the marginalized during the previous administration and dropped it near instantly when 47 came in. That's corporate opportunism.

We have seen the rise of representative democracy, of fascism, the rise of communism in the past. I don't think we have seen anything that deserves a similar label with regard to progressivism. There is a general sine curve thru the ages of left-leaning and right-leaning politics. And thru the swings from one side to another we have still abolished slavery, enfranchised women, built social security nets, decriminalized abortion (or at least permitted it in some cases) and same sex relationships, etc. A lot of it was built on political movements but I dare say none that rose to the top and stayed there. So a rise of progressivism is as non-sensical to me as a rise of conservatism. They are just opposite ends on the political scale and we dance from one side to the other and back again.

Are you getting inundated with JFK was anti Israel posits and hot takes? Because I sure aren't.

I think it's because these are people with the power to do more than thoughts and prayers. But they just stick with that while also taking health care off veterans and giving tax breaks to the rich.

This has to fall under the category of "never trust a statistic you didn't forge yourself." I'm confident without looking that the amorphous Western countries don't all count suicides and attempts the same way. And for China you would have to trust official numbers or generate your own because the one thing the leadership does not like is looking bad in the international community.

The other question I would have is this ratio based on absolute numbers or per capita. The reason why I ask is that China has a massive gender imbalance, a blast from the past when the one - child policy was in play and millions of female embryos were somehow aborted. And here I would also assume that official population numbers may not be entirely correct to make the generally known problem within the country look less severe.

If there are more men in absolute numbers, there will be more male suicides, some of which one might attribute to the ripples downstream of that very same imbalance.

Whoever concluded this may have accounted for all the pitfalls in their study. And the result may be fantastically accurate. But we oughta be careful and keep more than just a few grains of salt handy when we hear about something like this.

But you had Facebook. That's as good as having it. They know you. Their grubby tentacles will never let go!

In their defense, they were probably lying before the advent of so-called AI as well.

What you need is help, not AI. If paying a designer is out of the question, look for the most design savvy person in your family, friends, or in your neighborhood. Maybe you can comp them a meal in exchange for making this look good.

You can use AI image generators to make background images. Just check the licenses if you're okay to use their stuff in a commercial setting. AI is still largely dog shit at handling real text in images. That's why I wouldn't recommend going this route for you here. You have a lot of text.

I think there are a couple of reasons. STIX and STX were failures, one so bad it ended the franchise. Also, IIRC Avery Brooks wasn't happy about the Sisko ending and he has pretty much stayed out of the limelight since DS9. While it was on the air the viewing figures weren't extraordinary. Worf was thrown in to get more TNG fans interested in the same way Jeri Ryan was put in a catsuit on VOY. DS9's last two seasons were binge TV before we knew that existed, it was ahead of its time, which explains why it's a sleeper hit and fan favorite. But not a great financial success at the time.

I'm being put in a difficult situation here because I'm gonna have to go ahead and defend the American "snowflakes." When it comes to interpreting the phrase "free elections" I think all democracies or close enough to that (which therefore includes the US) chose to say free means you're also free not to participate. Except for the Aussies. And while I'm not an American snowflake, I'm still a snowflake because I agree with that interpretation. It wouldn't just ruffle feathers in the US if mandatory election participation was prescribed. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Horse = voter, drink = vote. And I don't think the Aussie governments of the last two decades have proven to be superior because they're backed by a larger voter base. Remember the guy who ate raw onions?

Lenmy offers me the freedom to get mad at many different people running instances and not just one godforsaken company running roughshod over everything communities had created over years.

I'm not mad at anyone though because I don't share your views at all. I'm a happy Lemmy user.

And what is Lemmy dot world acting like at night?

Then you haven't been to China. It's a shorthand gesture there. The character for ten is 十 so I'm not sure if the gesture informed the character or the other way around. What is noteworthy is just that both cultures ended up with a cross to denote ten.

Not being asked a version of this question every other day or so.