In actuality science isn't so complicated that only some "scientists" can understand it and the public doesn't really need the media playing "translator" to what "scientists" said.

Yeah, I have to disagree there. Why do you think people require multiple years, sometimes even decades, to study stuff? The average person simply doesn't have the necessary knowledge and understanding of the subject matter to grasp what's happening in a scientific paper. Nobody's an expert in everything.

Have you tried reading the papers published in recognized journals? They are by no means trivial and sometimes even if the article is written in an understandable manner and seems plausible, the wrong statistical methods could've been chosen, the experiments may have been setup incorrectly, or a bunch of other stuff could've happened that wasn't accounted for - or explicitly accounted for but hidden to achieve a certain result.

Doesn't stop NPCs from gobbling up what the media peddles about science as fact. Like the stupid climate change thing, which is full of holes if you look at the actual data. It's just that the media has repeated this bullshit over decades again and again, that by now lots of people actually believe in man made climate change.

Have you actually looked at the data yourself? And where did you find that data? Additionally, are you a climatologist / do you think you are better equipped than a climatologist to interpret the data?

What exactly do you think is disinformation? They're showing how disinformation is spread.

How is it even legal? Didn't Americans cede all kinds of liberties for the sake of "saving the children" ?

A video for you too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5UPnuSTRjA

This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. A minority of them are climatologists.

Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change

So, because 2-3% of climatologists doubt the findings, that gives them more weight in your opinion than the 97-98%? Climatology isn't a soft science like social sciences, you know?

Cheapskateguide aka "I want others to provide solutions to my problems free of charge".

If that dude wants to see support for his hardware that old, he better write it himself. It's not locked in like the bullshit that Apple puts out.

Federated apps:

• Funkwhale
• Mastodon
• Peertube
• Reel2bit

If I could watch stuff, listen to music and podcasts + read news on I2P, the clearnet would become much less interesting to me.

It's a browsable backup of stuff?

Hurrdurr, I'm a troll and conflate issues to trigger people because it's cool to be anti-science and pro-bullshit.

Good job

Despite who this person is, I agree. It is however a difficult issue: where can transgenders compete?

Men->Women transgenders are physically advantaged to bio-women and disadvantaged to bio-men. The inverse applies to Women->Men transgenders. I doubt there are enough transgenders to compete in their own league.

Tough...

How did he even get involved in this?

No idea who this dude is and if you're the author, but he could've started with a video or pictures showcasing what it is he's talking about. Sure, you can throw all the code at me and I'll understand a little what it does, but I'll have no idea what the final result will look like. That makes me unwilling to sift through the text.

I guess I rejoined at a good time <3

Would you consider that the norm?

But do you?

This seems to be making the rounds, but I doubt Google usage will drop at all. It wouldn't surprise me if the people affected by this even avidly use Google Chrome as their main browser.

This is great news! It shows that even with open source you can make a vibrant and valuable business. Just like Redhat and Canonical and probably a few other companies.