iglou

No, human trafficking was very much legal when slavery was the norm. Not all human trafficking, but the one that specifically was about trafficking slaves.

Putting the slightest chance of profits over the conservation of rare books is also pure malice in my book. With a layer of makeup.

I'd say everyone has emotional baggage. I don't see a single person growing up on this planet that can possibly not have emotional baggage.

The difference is about how you handle it. Emotional baggage and emotional instability are NOT connected.

I don't think there is a particularly higher amount of people in tech that become insane at the first feel of power. They just often have a higher impact. Just look at the corporate world. The amount of power tripping managers is pretty high as well.

I'm surprised to see lemmy users defending liberticide and authoritarian decisions.

You clearly understood the title, so no, the "reading comprehension" thing wasn't a dig at you. It was a way to say that you shouldn't assume the reader is unable to understand the litteral meaning of the title, because that is honestly condescending.

The title does not misrepresent anything, is not dramatizing the situation either. It doesn't even say "most" or "a sizeable share" or anything that would imply it's a massively widespread problem. It uses one of the least dramatic quantifier: "often". Then it says "up to" because... That is the only way to say it? Are you expecting a title to say "up to, but not necessarily as high as"? It's a title.

Your title alternative is, however, actually dramatizing, making it a bigger problem than it is. "Not all is the same, watch out what you're buying!" Is the emotion it creates in the first part. Then de-dramatizing with "some".

The title of this post is as neutral as it can be. It is, literally, stating a fact. The word "up to" is indeed not magical, it is the proper way of indicating an upper bound without dramatizing.

I am shocked this is even a debate. And english isn't even my first language.

Edit: admittedly it could use "sometimes" instead of "often", or back up with numbers. But that is hardly dramatizing.

The literal wording of the title is "up to". You're criticizing it for cherry picking when it's... not.

If there's a contrarian here, it's certainly not me.

Nice personal attack though!

And at least to me, they symbolise freedom, and more specifically freedom of movement. They go wherever they want, whenever they want, with no restriction. And this is a fundamental idea of the EU.

The title already says "up to" for both the 30% and the sodium content. If the reader understands anything else, that's a reading comprehension issue.

Spoken like an unconditional fan to a shitty team!

Why would I name a football club? Are you alright?

Again, it's not about the numbers. There is no stat on the severity of fouls. Did you even watch the matches? Or are you willfully blind to the shit your favorite team does?

I don't know how you guys play football in South America, but in the rest of the world we tend to follow the rules and play the game, rather than try and takedown the opponents.

You'd probably say that the football that Paraguay offered wasn't dirty either. Lmao.