It’s a linux distro. I’ve been using it the past few months since it’s supposed to be fairly similar to windows in appearance to make switching away from that easier.

Why even have a health department if their answer to disease is “literally just do nothing about it”

Or radiation perhaps?

What about these, the cutest lil bootlickers ever?

Looks like AI to me, so even if there is such an ad it wouldnt be what one gets in the end.

I know albatross are big, but I can’t stop seeing it as an abnormally small man petting an abnormally well-behaved seagull.

Literally any time I see United Airlines branding, I immediately get “United breaks guitars” stuck in my head.

To be fair, potentially addictive or not, I wouldn’t support a ban on social media either. The practical requirements needed to effectively restrict access to information in the modern age (both porn and social media being examples of information) are such that I generally view the cure as worse than the disease, so to speak, and view the least bad option as being to just give up on legal restrictions and just deal with the consequences instead. Addiction is harmful, but most consumers of such information aren’t harmed by it, and restriction inherently requires monitoring and removing internet anonymity to a degree that I find unacceptable.

Literally monsters Inc.

Tech people reinvent the bus, at least it isn’t a worse train this time.

ornithopters arent exactly new

The vast majority of cars on the road are not delivery vehicles, bringing them up is irrelevant. The point is not “literally zero motorized road vehicles should enter city limits”

Its called “New England” for a reason.

It’s not really true that they have no ethics though, if it was, it’d be a simpler problem, because they’d presumably just care about reducing unpleasant consequences to themselves and as such a legal deterrent should be effective. The issue is that they have different ethics, which are misaligned with everyone else’s and so result in conflict when they stubbornly refuse to do something that everyone else perceives as a no-brainer. It isn’t like the church gets some material gain out of keeping confession secret.

To be fair, the issue isn’t so much the person admitting things being protected by being part of the church, but if a third party not associated with law enforcement can be compelled to say to said law enforcement about the things said to them. Honestly I think I get the arguments on both sides of this one, it’s not great to legally compel people to say things, especially when saying those things is directly in violation of their sense of ethics, and it’s also not great to just not do anything when made aware of something like child abuse. I think that a law like this is unlikely to help much though: if the church caves, then it seems unlikely that people would be willing to admit to these things anymore anyway, at least to priests, and if they don’t, these guys seem to believe that the consequences of following the law are worse than breaking it, and so it seems unlikely to do much more than occasionally send a priest to jail when it can be proven that they were told of something and didn’t report it.

If any are, I bet crows are among them.

Shouldn’t the raptors cancel though?

I’d rather not create thought crimes, or give the government a vague label to slap on any group of people they want to criminalize.

While that certainly doesn’t speak well for him, wouldn’t it be more of a surprise at this point if they chose a pope that couldn’t be described that way? This is the catholic church we’re talking about.

It depends, I think, on if that thing should make them uncomfortable. Making someone uncomfortable because you’re acting threatening or something is a bit different than making someone uncomfortable because they have unreasonable standards.