aleph

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] aleph@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

All true, but that doesn't disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn't categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:

https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of inconclusive or null results doesn't mean there is categorically no link -- it could equally mean that more research is needed.

That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ear buds or IEMs typically have a much higher sensitivity than full sized headphones. The higher the output power of your PC's headphone out, the louder your earbuds will be at any given volume %.

There isn't anyway around this except to manually change the volume whenever you use your earbuds.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Actually, it's nothing more than lazy slander pepetuated by duopoly apologists.

There's zero proof Stein is "Putin backed". She once sat at the same table at an international conference and barely spoke to the man. That's it.

Meanwhile, AOC has been publicly performing as a genuine progressive for her voters and constituents all while voting and acting like a corporate Democrat behind the scenes.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
  1. Israel primarily needs bombs, and lots of them. No other country could provide Israel with bombs and planes on the scale that the US currently supplies them. A US arms embargo would force Israel to use up its current stockpiles, and could seriously affect their war effort.

  2. Israel has initiated all of the recent military strikes in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon and despite this, none of Israel's neighbors, not even Iran, want escalation to a full scale conflict. The idea that they would all suddenly attack Israel following a US arms embargo is sheer fantasy.

  3. The US State department is imposing restrictions on Israel's use of US weaponry? Uh, since when? They are not currently imposing any restrictions, even though they should be under the Leahy Laws, so imposing an embargo would not change Israel's behavior in this regard whatsoever. All this talk of being "in compliance with international humanitarian law" when it comes to Israel is a total PR farce.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The Democrats are trying to do the exact same thing to the Greens in Wisconsin and Montana. It's a duopoly thing.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sure, because our current economic system creates governments and laws that protect private capital and short-term exploitation at the expense of the natural world.

I do see hope in the book, though. Once you look beyond the human scale, it shows us that trees are always going to outlast us, no matter how hard we try to destroy our environment. The question is - can we learn from their patience and adaptability before we screw ourselves beyond the point of no return?

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I haven't finished it yet, but so far the fatalism seems to be balanced by the reminder that we are intrinsically linked to the natural world, and that it is never too late to seek solace in it.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They allowed the family of an Israeli hostage on stage. Why not afford Palestinian Americans the same courtesy to have one of their own represented? Hell, they could have stood alongside the hostage's family to show solidarity and hope for peace in the future.

The Uncommitted movement did everything the "right way" -- they went through the official channels and offered the DNC a list of speakers and gave them permission to vet the speech however they wanted. But apparently that was still too big of an ask.

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's a perfectly good source. Is there anything about their argument that you find unsound, or is it simply because it makes you uncomfortable?

[–] aleph@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm not advocating either way, although the horrors I’ve seen committed in Gaza are on a whole other level than anything I’ve witnessed before.

I wouldn’t blame anyone who votes third party, or even sits this one out.

 

It appears UFOs are flavor of the month again.

view more: ‹ prev next ›