??? are you just resorting to bringing up completely unrelated shit to escape embarrassment? I imagined context could make it clear but mentioning "former communist countries" I was speaking of communist countries in history which formerly existed, but now no longer exist. If I meant countries which were communist but now aren't, I would have specified "formerly communist countries". Why would you even think it was implying that a country being communist in the past means it's leftist in the present? How do you reason that?

Edit: lol apparently @cypherpunks@lemmy.ml or an admin is removing the replies because they speak of Lenin's Gulags, dekulakization, and Mao's Laogai. Funny what kind of comments get removed by .ml mods; apparently not comments trying to suddenly bring antisemitism into the conversation, and not comments pretending that saying sometimes in history leftist governments have interned kids means I must both be anti-leftist and making excuses for the US' treatment of immigrants.

How do you, with a straight face, say "criticizing a communist leader/government means you hate jews"? You are simply resorting to making up "you're an antisemite" out of thin air to invalidate others. I have literally not once mentioned judaism. I don't even know if I've mentioned jews in my entire comment history before you randomly started blaming jews for alleged "anticommunism".

You are using discrimination against jews as a tool to attempt silencing others. You accusing everyone else of being an "antisemite" is your way of avoiding your own responsibility and putting others in a box. Let me guess, you support the Israeli genocide of Palestinians and use "antisemite" to defend it too?

Lol space will NOT make any difference at all. That technology is not progressing at a rate where we could have millions, let alone billions of people inhabiting space in the near future. We'd also pretty much be completely limited to our solar system, meaning planet-wise we have maybe Mars and Europa and Titan at best... but there's absolutely no chance of any meaningful colonial activity on those planets, Mars would probably have something similar to Antarctic research facilities on it but that's about it.

Apparently he actually died in his car 2 days after a fruitless police raid, allegedly of "heart attack".

reddit has been pretty much the only reliable option that isn't stackoverflow, in my experience

Coal (anything) doesn’t "contain" energy. We can transform some things, and some transformations produce energy in some form or another.

Akstchually energy is a property of matter, or matter is a property of energy, whatever 🤓 but your point still stands

The US gets 1/5 of its power from nuclear energy, and produces 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste per year – only enough to fill about half of the volume of an olympic-sized swimming pool (and about the same weight as 10 wind turbines).

Only 3% of all of that waste is actually long-lived and highly radioactive, potentially requiring isolation from the environment. In France, this number goes down to 0.2% due to fuel being reprocessed.

Taking that into consideration, that means it would take about 2/3 of a century for the US to produce enough dangerous nuclear waste to fill this pool completely. And it can still be way more efficient.

Nuclear produces negligible amounts of actual waste for the amount of energy it gives us. The problems with nuclear aren't at all the waste, rather it's the current highly used methods that are used to harvest the fuel (slave labour and unsafe, dirty, destructive drilling). Very similar problems faced with, say, lithium and cobalt.

sorry but a ham sandwich and an apple aren't even close to enough to be an apt meal for a child, for many kids school lunch is the most nutrition they get in a day and ripping that away from them is evil. the advice in your comment is terrible.

sliced meats sold in the US generally have EXTRAORDINARILY little nutrition, and are pretty expensive, while at the same time having a fuck ton of salt stuffed into them both for flavour and as preservatives. all you're doing with a ham sandwich is wasting money to give your kids malnutrition and high blood pressure. sliced cheeses are less bad but they're mostly salt and saturated fats still – and are still very little nutrition compared to the cost.

the most nutritious thing is the bread, but the most commonly bought bread slices are mostly just grains other than fiber, which while not necessarily a problem is still NOT something that can compensate for the lack of nutrition in the meal.

fruits are great and all but they're only one part of our diets, it can be really difficult both money and time wise to do everything else. schools shouldn't be ADDING on to that difficulty, they should be helping families with it instead.

but instead of that, our country is filled with people like you who choose to deflect from the issue of a dysfunctional social welfare system by pretending it'd be manageable if only it weren't for those bad parents. i agree that most parents don't deserve their kids, but it's not always in their control, and regardless of that, whether or not a kid won the birth lottery is completely irrelevant to it – we should guarantee that ALL kids can, without shame and without punishment, get the food that they need to develop properly.

Is this the child's debt? No its the parents' debt for something they needed to buy for their child.

Except for the fact that the child is punished for it via methods such as not being allowed to graduate if there's any of this debt whatseoever, and in the language of the paperwork & websites used to pay it off it's generally portrayed as debt belonging to the child.

Kids also used to flat out be refused food if they had lunch debt, but now kids just get a shitty non-nutritious "debt" lunch instead which is better than nothing I guess (but still causes them to be judged by peers). It's actually not even illegal to prevent stigmatizing/shaming kids who have this debt...

I was nearly prevented from graduating (in Georgia, the same state in this article) because I owed something like $4 or $16 in "debt" to the school, lol. Schools can also prevent you from advancing to the next grade if you have debt.

It's also completely legal to withhold school records, report cards, etc. from students if debt is unpaid – so even if the student graduates, have fun getting the things you need to go to college... oh wait, they're not going to college anyways because they definitely can't afford that. I don't think they do that here though.

Also your comparison with ballet lessons is bad. Those are outside of the school system, outside any government organization, and it's completely the parent's responsibility and choice to even enroll the student in such things. The education system, and basic human needs like lunch, are completely different. Your remark comes off as you commodifying school lunches, treating it like a child's basic human needs are even remotely comparable to voluntary non-school activities.

If you were to compare it rather to, band or drama or ballet class (extracurriculars) then I would actually say the point still completely stands for those too – such things can be vital to a child's health, development, and social life, and to assign DEBT to participate in those activities is absurd and directly affects the students negatively. My school was one of the few in my area where it didn't cost hundreds of dollars just to participate in band in middle and high school. And it still costed a lot of money to do things like marching band, because the program was underfunded! A majority of extracurricular funding goes to sports, specifically football, in most of the south, so programs like band had to have parents of students sponsor them for tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and to do plenty of fundraising events, just to make it so we could function. Students still had to contribute a lot of money if they wanted to do specific things.

That's just band, but there are many examples. That wasn't my parent's debt, that was my debt. When I had the opportunity to take AP tests and the like and potentially get scholarships, I was ashamed to do so in the fear that I might fail and waste my family's money. And I'm still lucky in this regard, because many other kids can't afford those things, and they can't take on the debt because it prevents them from graduating. With the fucked state of financial aid/welfare in the US, many of those kids don't even qualify to have those kinds of costs covered by the state, so at best they're left in shame with the only other choice being to beg and hope that the people they go to aren't dismissive or can help.

It is the student's debt, practically. They get all the consequences and they're treated like they're responsible. If it wasn't their debt, they wouldn't be prevented from graduating their grade, or graduating high school, or being given proper nutrition, or doing extracurriculars.

of course, but that's not an issue with "the government needs to not be able to hide anything". you can't just nitpick some examples of where it may do good to justify the position – you open an entire can of worms with the vagueness. should they have to disclose a list of all the people theyre keeping tabs on, how theyre doing so, and the info they hold on them? that would be extremely dangerous for society. should they disclose the exact methods which they use to track people? again, you're just showing the people they're tracking (for good reason) how to avoid being tracked. if you just want no backdoors then say "we shouldn't have government backdoors", but the only way to properly ensure that the government isn't illegally doing so is by exposing a whole lot more stuff that may not go so nicely.

i don't want the government surveilling me illegally, but i find it reasonable that the government can hide a lot of stuff for the sake of all safety. i also find it reasonable for them to be audited extensively. do I trust the government? lol no, but i can't complain about the government not previously keeping tabs on obvious shooters, then say i don't want the government keeping secrets like that... it's one or the other.

obviously many specific things shouldn't be able to be hidden by the government. but you're painting with a broad brush

so your solution is for the government to notify people of those vulnerabilities so others can immediately take abuse of them? because people know that the government makes backdoors on a lot of tech, it's no secret to people, your "solution" wouldn't exactly achieve anything. the current government doesn't care about collateral so it's not like they'd just stop doing it.