Yeah the weird thing is that Von der Leyen claimed it's basically done and perfect. But it's nothing of the sort.

Loads fine for me. It's someone sitting in front of a desk with 15 large monitors surrounding them in a semicircle, 3 monitors stacked on top of one another in 5 columns.

To be fair, the media usually does a real shit job of explaining it.

Does he actually have a diagnosis or are you making that up or assuming things?

I don't survey people on the street, but they likely would be closer to the definition accepted in academia than the mere buying and selling of goods.

I think that's optimistic. The average persons understanding of these concepts is very limited. They'd most likely call ancient Rome "capitalist", because "they're not communist".

That's the average persons understanding. There's capitalism and there's communism, and communism is when you own nothing and everyone is poor and capitalism is everything not-communism. It's deeply disappointing but that's what you're up against.

So when an intellectual person says "capitalism is human nature", it means something completely different from when an average person says it. To both the 400-years argument won't make sense.

An intellectual will argue that it naturally came about, so it must be human nature for it to arise so prominently. An average person will laugh in your face "because Rome wasn't communist". Neither is correct in their own way, but they're also not going to be convinced by the 400 years argument. One doesn't believe you, the other doesn't care.

Historical examples of proto-socialism or communal living would be a stronger counterpoint imo. Not because it's more correct in a theoretical sense, but because it more directly challenges the core of the opposing sides argument.

Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn't contribute to the war effort at all.

It's likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it's estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it's more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.

The form required for deadlifts basically requires you to stand up straight. It's actually helped me personally to get a better standing form.

Definitely have someone explain and help you with your form though. It can be hard to tell for an inexperienced person if their form is good, and bad form is risky when deadlifting.

The weight doesn't even have to be that high, it's all about learning the proper form, which helps you realize a better posture.

If there was a way to make sure they're not going to change their minds later then starting with the treatment as early as possible would seems like the obvious way to go, but it's not quite that simple.

Except that's fine if they do? If you stop taking puberty blockers, you start going through puberty. This is not some magic irreversible medication or something, for the ~1% that do change their mind this isn't an issue.

I could maybe see this argument work for gender reassignment surgery, but not for puberty blockers.

We should let healthcare experts make healthcare decisions.

The difference between ban and suspend isn't a temporal difference. Here's the Cambridge dictionary definition of "suspend":

to stop something from being active, either temporarily or permanently (see: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suspend)

Here's the definition for "ban":

to forbid (= refuse to allow) something, especially officially (see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ban?q=Ban)

The difference between the two is the subject: an active process or service can be suspended, but something specific (e.g. an action, object or person) can be banned. Ban also implies a more official act in order to punish someone or prevent something (Johnny was banned from entering the bus), whereas a suspension doesn't necessarily have that 'negative' context (e.g. the bus service was suspended, which doesn't imply this happened because the bus driver was drunk or something).

In a more Lemmy-specific context, you could say you suspended someone's access to the platform, or that you banned them from the platform. Neither way of saying it implies anything about the duration. You can't however really say you suspended someone from the platform, that doesn't really work.

In this context, I think the direct implication that a ban is handed out because someone did something bad is a lot clearer than when you use the word suspension. Because of that I believe ban to be the more context-appropriate word here. Suspend does not carry that connotation as something can be suspended for a whole host of reasons, none of which have to be related to rule-breaking. For example, federation with another instance could be suspended temporarily until the other instance does (or doesn't do) something that is required for technical reasons.

It does require invasive oversight. If I send a picture of my kid to my wife, I don't want some AI algorithm to have a brainfart and instead upload the picture to Europol for strangers to see and to put me on some list I don't belong.

People sharing CSAM are unlikely to use apps that force these scans anyway.

... carried out rapid manoeuvres and live firing at Western Europe's largest firing range...

Bit rude to refer to Belgium that way, but not historically inaccurate I suppose.

I've tried both but always find myself just opening new windows instead of using split panels. I find it to be more convenient personally.