Possibly although I’ve heard a few different theories about what Russia really wants. One theory is that their goal was to get their hands on Ukraine’s lithium mines since the value of gas and oil is declining while lithium is rising.

In either case what Russia wanted and what they’re capable of achieving right now are two different things. It seems highly unlikely that Russia is capable of a complete military victory and occupation of Ukraine at this point, at least not without pulling their armed forces off most of their border, something Putin very much does not want to do. This entire thing has turned into a giant quagmire for Russia as originally they expected this to play out as a fast blitz to seize the capital and instead they got dragged into a prolonged siege that has severely weakened their military not to mention exposed exactly how shabby and 3rd rate it is.

Considering the rocky position Putin is in now no matter his original intent he may consider it worth while to take the small gains he has made and quit while he’s ahead. If he believes he can prevent Ukraine from joining NATO then he can always just re-invade in the future after he’s reinforced his troops and replenished his weapons stockpiles.

I’m rooting for Ukraine but with donvict taking office it’s not looking great. I’m fully expecting all US support to be cut off as soon as he can manage it (just like his puppet master Putin has ordered), and unless one of the EU countries steps in to fill that gap it’s going to get rough over there. Well, rougher. I’m afraid Ukraine might actually be forced into accepting a surrender condition that lets Russia retain all the land they’ve taken, although that could be partially mitigated by Ukraine being let into NATO. On the other hand I’m not sure how much ability Trump will have to block Ukraine’s NATO membership but if he has any ability to do so at all I expect him to do just that.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. None of this is based on anything claimed by the corn industry but rather on a series of studies that were done (technically one paper followed by a paper by a different group refuting that paper due to it overlooking an important detail).

For a pretty good explanation of all of this check this video out: https://youtu.be/NY66qpMFOYo

You actually can’t taste a difference. The taste tests are between so called Mexican coke and US coke, but it’s not apples to apples. Mexican coke is a different formula which is why it tastes different, it’s not just corn syrup replaced with sugar. For instance Mexican coke has less than half the sodium of US coke. People prefer the Mexican formula, not the sugar.

Edit: for comparison here’s the nutrition label of Mexican coke and US coke. Notice the sodium and carbohydrate quantities. The formulas are different, it’s like comparing Sprite and Sierra Mist, they’re a similar flavor but ultimately different.

You can also just watch this: https://youtu.be/NY66qpMFOYo

It explains all of this and debunks every possible argument for why sugar might be better than corn syrup in soda.

Edit 2: For those downvoting you do realize that doesn’t change reality right? You’re still wrong and there is no difference between a soda sweetened with sugar and one sweetened with corn syrup (no not even taste). If you have two sodas that are completely identical except one is sweetened with sugar and one with corn syrup if it’s been more than a month since they were made they are chemically identical, there will be no actual sugar left in the one made with sugar. They will taste identical, even in a blind taste test. Mexican Coke is not US Coke with the corn syrup replaced! It’s a different soda entirely.

So, not to detract from your overall point, but apparently there’s functionally no difference between soda sweetened with sugar and corn syrup. The reason why is after a month or so of sitting on the shelf the acidity of a carbonated drink has converted all the sucrose (table sugar) into a 50/50 mix of glucose and fructose. Corn syrup is a 45/55 mix of glucose and fructose.

So while a corn syrup sweetened coke would have ~5% more fructose than one sweetened by sugar, the difference is so minuscule as to be effectively identical. In other contexts (such as in baked goods, candies, or non-carbonated drinks) there is a difference between using sugar and corn syrup, it’s just in the specific case of carbonated drinks that it doesn’t matter.

I don’t see any mention in there of Thalidomide being a mirror molecule, do you have a source for that?

I don’t think this is “hand slap” level, but it also isn’t multiple decades behind bars level which is what they would be looking at for that quantity of CSAM, particularly for a couple of horny teenagers that likely weren’t even sure what they were doing was illegal. I do think you’re over exaggerating somewhat the harm in this case as fundamentally what was done isn’t much different from something like cutting out photos of these girls heads and pasting them into a porn magazine. It’s certainly fancier and more convincing, but at the end of the day that’s what happened, their faces got superimposed on the bodies of porn stars. That likely bothered these girls in the same way the thought of some random creep jerking off to their original photos would, and if the images were widely circulated it could cause some issues down the line (heartache certainly, but job loss certainly not), but if this bothered them enough to alter the way they feel about sex for the rest of their lives there were already significant mental issues at play.

I honestly don’t know exactly what an appropriate level of punishment would be. My gut says something like 6 months to a year in juvenile detention plus some years of probation. I think a significant amount of weight needs to be given to the fact that these were a couple of teenagers doing something that wasn’t obviously illegal. They cannot and should not be held to the same standards as adults would be for the same reason statutory rape is a thing, they’re incapable of reasoning about their actions to the same degree as an adult is.

You have to admit there is a pretty fundamental difference between manipulating an otherwise legal image to look like a minor in a sexual act vs an actual photo of that same minor engaged in a sexual act. While both might be considered a crime, the damage to the victim is of a fundamentally different nature. I think there’s a strong argument that the former bears a closer relationship to slander than it does to rape.

I think the argument in this case isn’t that a crime wasn’t committed, but rather charging a minor for CSAM possession is inappropriate (particularly when the images are fake). Perhaps a different law needs to be made for these highly specific cases, as the existing CSAM laws typically carry very hefty sentences that don’t seem entirely appropriate in a case like this.

This has always been one of the problems with CSAM laws. There have been a number of cases now where minors were charged with CSAM possession for either naked pictures of themselves, or pictures (consensual) of their girlfriend/boyfriend who was also a minor. There’s also the broader discussion about what exactly qualifies as CSAM, with some jurisdictions going for a more maximalist approach that considers things like drawings (even highly unrealistic or stylized ones) of people or even fictional characters to be CSAM. Some jurisdictions don’t even require the photo or drawing to depict the minor naked or even engaging in a sexual act, they instead define it as pornography if the person in possession of it gets some kind of sexual gratification from it. So for instance a photo of a minor that’s fully clothed and just standing there could actually be considered CSAM.

The problem is that it’s hard to draw hard lines about what does or doesn’t qualify without then leaving loopholes that can be exploited. This is why many jurisdictions opt for a maximalist approach and then leave it to the discretion of the police and prosecutors for what they do or do not consider, but of course that has the flaw that it’s entirely arbitrary and leaves a lot of power in the hands of prosecutors and police for something widely regarded as a extremely serious crime.

War on mergers? What in the absolute fuck are they going on about? Our government has never been more friendly to mergers. We need to be breaking corporations up left right and center not approving more mergers.

These fuckers aren’t going to be happy until there’s just one mega corp that owns literally everything (including the government).

Massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in general, massive reduction in both poverty and homelessness (ideally homelessness would be eliminated, there’s literally nothing stopping that from happening), access to healthcare as a fundamental human right, and massive reduction in wealth inequality would be a good start. On top of that we need better democracies (nothing has fundamentally improved on that front in hundreds of years), and equal protection of rights and access to justice for everyone, not just for the rich, those with the “right” color of skin and who happen to believe in the “right” delusion.

The EU has done a bit for a lot of these points in theory but the execution in many cases has been sloppy, haphazard, and generally ineffective. The rest of the world is looking a lot worse and in many cases is actively regressing. While individual countries at various points in time have seen improvements in individual areas in many cases those improvements were short lived as the various elements of humanity that oppose progress for selfish reasons chip away at and eventually destroy these small gains.

Our science, technology, and medical knowledge do constantly improve, but when all of that is then used for warfare and squeezing profit out of the suffering and misfortune of others the net effect is negative.

It seems like it’s almost a law of nature that for every gain and improvement humanity makes in one area, we must have an equal negative impact in another.

Things haven’t been getting better, we’ve just gotten a lot better at deferring the negative consequences of our actions. In many cases entire generations can go by now without having to suffer the consequences of their actions, but those consequences are still coming.

The CEO death was definitely not faked or planned. It’s possible this guy is a patsy so they can wrap the case up. He was apparently already in custody for a firearms offense when they flagged him as the killer. It does seem awfully convenient just how much evidence they’re claiming to have tying him to the murder. I suppose we’ll know for sure if another health insurance executive gets what they have coming to them following this arrest.

They don’t care if there’s gaps, those people just won’t get mail service. They’re only interested in extracting as much money as they can from the rotting husk of the US economy. They’ve just hollowed out so much of the middle class now that they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel and need to start squeezing the last dregs out of the barely profitable things like the USPS.

Nixon started the culture war bullshit that eventually resulted in the anti-woke and anti-trans bullshit. Reagan started the economic insanity that gave us our current massive wealth gap and is driving the popular support for deregulation and tax breaks for the wealthy. Clinton and Bush cemented our corrupt media and the domestic spying programs.

cough cough ^jury ^nullification cough

Sorry, there must be something in the air today.

Only exception would be if they can produce those wafers at 1/10th of the previous cost, but I highly doubt that’s the case.

More security won’t save them. For a time it will stop these vigilante style attacks, but if that outlet is cut off eventually you’ll see large mobs leading the attacks instead and security won’t be able or willing to stop them.

Death is the ultimate consequence. His family has kept the wealth for now, but if it gets bad enough that won’t last either.

Your problem is you’re taking the principled stance of how a fair system should work, but we’re well past that point now. The system is broken and rigged. Desperate people when given the choice between lashing out randomly at those responsible or wasting time and energy playing rigged games that don’t achieve anything will opt to lash out even if it doesn’t accomplish much in the long term.

Things are at their breaking point and it’s going to get messy. These sorts of things are just the first cracks along the stress points. If significant changes to reduce peoples frustrations aren’t made it will lead to significantly more violent events like this.

The rich should be very scarred right now because there’s absolutely nothing more dangerous than a group of people backed into a corner and desperate.

Should whoever did this have done this? No. But by the same token most people aren’t going to be particularly bothered by this either. A complete scumbag got murdered and considering the society we’re living in now that’s literally the only bad thing that could have happened to him. He was never in any danger of facing consequences from his actions through legal means.

He did face the consequences, but his fellow executives who were just as much to blame haven’t and likely never will. This isn’t a solution, but it is a warning sign that things are approaching a tipping point. Historically when things get this bad and the “peasants” start pulling out guillotines and scaffolds things have gone very badly for both the ruling class and many of the ones leading the executions, but in the wake of such things there is some improvement. This is a significant warning to politicians and lawmakers that if they don’t do something soon to address the rampant corporate greed and rapaciousness this sort of thing will start becoming more common and eventually the mob will be coming for them as well.