clara
okay, here's al jazeera reporting on the ballistic missile, it's a one liner but it's something
this is a saturation attack imo, the question is, at what target?
citing abc news (link here), us official says 400 to 500 drones
unconfirmed reports of ballistic missiles in the air too, it's all osint right now so no good source on that yet, if i get one i'll add it as a reply
oh god they're actually doing it
that's a really cool map, thank you for posting 🙂
i'll be honest, unless you're at the west coast of ireland, probably give this one a miss. :(
okay, using the words listed at the start of this wikipedia article, here's where i place myself:
analyze/center/defense/labour/organize/program
or, British 1, American 5, Canadian 4, Australian 2
it's a nice litmus test to see where you're at. i knew i used to skew NA in writing style, but i didn't think by that much
i mean, i really dont want to be that poster, but he's not being arrested for blocking with a scooter, he's being arrested for protesting
there's a separate discussion to be had about arresting protesters, but the way they're trying to spin this as "they oppressed a disabled person for being disabled" is honestly insulting to the agency of disabled people that choose to protest, and whom accept the risk of consequences for doing so
in my mind, you can't be both trying to normalize disability, and then also weaponizing it when it suits you for an opinion piece after being arrested. in particular, i take offense to the line in the article: "Now prosecuting disabled people to (sic) acting ‘socially responsibly’", as if that's magically a step too far?
a "fairer" title here would have been something like "activist prosecuted for deftly showcasing how climate risks disproportionately affect disabled people". although, it wouldn't have been as attention grabby, and so none of us would be reading it...
REMEMBER, YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER PERSON'S ANGER. WHEN SHOUTING HAPPENS, DISTANCE YOURSELF TO SHOW THAT IT'S NOT OKAY
OR JUST CRANK THE HOG LOUDER, AROOOOOOO
yep, you're entirely right. for your area, it's more effective to run wells for each person. the frustrating part being that, it implies that the city has been designed so, so badly, that individuals can't actually share resources, without the per capita price going up if they do so.
even without depopulation, that's a huge governmental failure. if individuals are having to run all their own utility setups and infrastructure, is that even a "city"? it sounds more like rural living but it's all vaguely connected. presumably as a result of this low density, you have higher ongoing costs elsewhere? i.e commutes to work, cost of food, etc
if not, then it could be one of those taxpayer-subsidised things, where it feels cheaper for each resident, but the reality is that someone else is paying for it. i'm not good at wording what i mean in this case, but i will pass you to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) to show it instead, he does a better job of explaining what i'm talking about
anyhow... that's crazy! it's entirely the thing i'm worried about seeing replicated large scale as a result of a reduction in population
nice video, i'm glad i watched through the whole thing. it's good to understand the perspective
i have a lot of major hangups with the concept, and i don't see myself aligning anywhere close to these ideas anytime soon, but i think it's positive to be shown the principles of anarchy from someone who believes them, rather than a strawman version of anarchy by someone who does not
thank you for posting :)