Imperialist west/US is totally taking part in that, either funding or leading in some way. Go and make your demands; but demanding the CPC down, that is demanding a liberal, US-like model, will just destroy China (that is all US wants). So these protesters are acting in bad-faith or were brainwashed and don’t have enough information.
Besides socioeconomic issues, I’d also correlate that to neofacist forces.
in part due to the global pandemic, lockdowns and the economic impact of these.
Most of the violence women and girls face is at the hands of intimate partners and family members, and it begins at an early age. Studies show that one in four young women (aged 15-24 years), who have been in a relationship, will have already experienced violence by an intimate partner by the time they reach their mid-twenties.
https://codeberg.org which is a non-profit organization. It is free of charge, so it is democratic enabling people to use its services. You can even join the foundation https://join.codeberg.org/
BUT it uses Gitea, which registered two for-profit companies in Hong Kong… Codeberg is soft forking it because the now Gitea shareholders / trademark owners made it clear they want to maximize profits.
If you care about promoting a democratic platform for everyone, do not use sourcehut. They will charge later on; their current free model enables both gathering users (potential clients) and making you a free tester/qa for them. I believe “financial aid” is undemocratic; free should be default. If anything, it should just require commercial, for-profit entities to pay; because then by default there is no processual need for “financial aid”. We should not trust any for-profit, commercial organization anyway for such important services/platforms (version control system hosting is crucial).
From the beta onwards, unpaid accounts will be limited to read-only access to their own projects. Affected users will be emailed at least 60 days in advance of the transition. Users who host their own instance of Sourcehut, on their own servers, will be unaffected by this. Additionally, financial aid will be provided to those who cannot pay; no one is going to be priced out.
built from traditional distribution packages, but deployed via images.
Hell no. https://nixos.org and https://guix.gnu.org ftw
things like this https://www.msn.com/en-xl/money/other/china-e2-80-99s-xi-jinping-sends-e2-80-98warning-signal-e2-80-99-to-the-wealthy-as-he-opens-new-front-in-e2-80-98common-prosperity-e2-80-99-push/ar-AA139N4Z
they have the means and are not afraid to take the capitalists down. they have take down exploitative industries already, like the private lectures industry, crypto, jailed for many years some capitalists, and so on… but of course they will not do that to an extent to destroy their own economy; that would not help them to achieve 1st place superpower taking US position.
Thus, the entire property insurance world have had economists working every angle for decades now. Do you know the saying: “The casino always wins”? From what I’ve seen/heard inside the insurance agencies, they are going to make a fortune from the devastation caused by the effects of climate change.
Fucking insurance industry scam. I would love to see it banned. Anyway, that is why sometimes I think not a “democracy” but only something like China would be able to enforce such a change (I know they won’t really do that because economy/capitalism…). US the worst of all this; the heart of capitalism.
in short there is no evidence whatsoever for the beginning of the universe. people confuse universe expansion (which there is evidence for) with the beginning of the universe (no evidence).
Big Bang #1 the beginning of the universe […] is what we find in the mathematics of Einstein’s general relativity if we extrapolate the current expansion of the universe back in time. The equations say that matter and energy in the universe becomes denser and hotter until, eventually, about 13.7 billion years in the past, both density and temperature become infinite. We cannot extrapolate any further back in time, so it’s fair to say that this event, if it happened, would be the beginning of the universe.
Einstein’s theory breaks down about 10-43 seconds before the mathematical singularity, a unit also known as the Planck time. Since physicists don’t believe the singularity is real, the phrase “Big Bang” has come to refer to whatever event might replace the singularity in the to-be-found theory of quantum gravity in this Planck time. Let’s call it just that—the Big Bang Event.
We have no evidence the Big Bang Event happened. We cannot look back in time anywhere near that long ago. The earliest direct observation we have is the formation of the cosmic microwave background, which was formed about 400,000 years after the hypothetical Big Bang Event. Be careful: If you Google for the time at which the microwave background was formed, you will get the answer that it was formed 13.7 billion years ago and that might look like it was formed at the Big Bang Event. But that’s because the figure is rounded.
The James Webb Space Telescope doesn’t tell us anything about the Big Bang Event.
We understand quite well how matter behaves at energy densities somewhat above those at which the microwave background must have formed, so we trust that our extrapolations back in time are correct until we reach an energy density that roughly corresponds to that which the Large Hadron Collider probes, which brings us to about 10-12 seconds before the hypothetical Big Bang Event. We know nothing about what matter does at higher energy density—even the density in neutron stars is lower than that.
Now, 10^-12 seconds isn’t much in human terms, but to get from there to the Big Bang Event, we’d still have to extrapolate over more than 50 orders of magnitude in energy density. That’s 50 orders of magnitude for which we have only speculation. This means the Big Bang Event might happen in our mathematics, but we have no observations that can tell us it happened in reality. Indeed, I think we will never have any observations that confirm the Big Bang Event. Some of my colleagues in astrophysics may disagree. But be that as it may, at least for now we just don’t know how the universe began.
That we have no evidence for (or against) the Big Bang Event is the reason why physicists have a large number of different hypotheses for the beginning of our universe. Besides the Big Bang Event, our universe could have been born out of a black hole; or it could have come about in a collision of higher-dimensional membranes; or it could have started as a big network in a non-geometric phase; or our universe could cycle through eons, as Roger Penrose has proposed. The most popular idea now is that our universe was born out of a fluctuation in a quantum field. All these alternative ideas to the Big Bang Event are possible because we cannot look back in time far enough to tell them apart.
The James Webb Space Telescope is an amazing instrument. It looks at young stars and galaxies that were formed long after the cosmic microwave background, at about 200 million years. That’s impressive, but it doesn’t tell us anything about the Big Bang Event, or its alternatives.
The problem has long been that the term Big Bang is used to refer to the expansion of the universe in general, and not to the event of the creation of the universe in particular. These are, however, two separate scientific hypotheses. We have overwhelmingly strong evidence that the universe expands (call it Big Bang #2), and we are confident about its history back to about the time of the electroweak phase transition, which is what the Large Hadron Collider probes. We have to date zero evidence for the beginning of the universe, whether it was a Big Bang Event or something else.
Historically, the first evidence for the expansion of the universe was Edwin Hubble’s observation that the light from other galaxies is systematically shifted to the red, indicating that they all recede from us. While this may have been the first evidence, the decisive evidence for the expansion of the universe was the discovery of the cosmic microwave background that ruled out the competing hypothesis, the “steady state” universe.
I see this “use random drugs until one clicks even if you don’t actually need it” approach mostly as a way for maximum profits while not developing better, more efficient treatments which would require greater investments likely, undermining profits… Capitalism at its best. Last I read psychiatry is one of the most well paying health related professions…
health systems that integrate mental and physical health care, especially at the primary care level. Mental and physical well-being are inextricably linked—physical illness and pain can cause depression and anxiety, and conversely can mask underlying medical conditions, especially when doctors interpret these experiences solely through the lens of a psychiatric diagnosis.
Any treatment has to start with a focus on the whole person. We need appropriate community-based care and holistic solutions that take social, economic, and cultural factors into account. We also need to broaden our understanding of recovery to mean a person’s ability to live a good life on their own terms, rather than defining it as the absence of certain symptoms.
Finally, we have to start treating mental health as a social justice and human rights issue. That’s why Mental Health Europe advocates for a psychosocial model that acknowledges the profound impact of lived experience and social environment in shaping mental health. We know that poverty, racism, and violence put people at higher risk of developing mental health problems—so that means we need population-level interventions which can focus on fighting the root causes of this public health crisis.
How do I contact the Wolfree Developers on the Fediverse?
Send your message to the inbox:
I’d also add Jami to the recommended list, even though it is a bit buggy.
Oh yeah society’s economic system, trade, driving all that in the end… knowing how to do research, which entities to trust, taking into account all this economic-driven influence is a must.
Dietary guidelines issued by government agencies responsible for food (largely the USDA) have changed over the years. They now focus less on foods and more on nutrients, which has three big problems:
A “balanced diet” has transformed from a selection of foods and portion suggestions into a concoction of nutrients that people have to “make sure they’re getting enough of,” (which they would anyway with a balanced diet.) It’s led the public to panic over specific nutrients and ingredients in our foods. So-called “nutritionism” has led to the low-fat craze, the salt-is-evil scare, and the eggs-cause-heart-disease panic, all of which have been largely refuted (with special cases excepted.) The people responsible for dietary guidelines are directly at odds with (and often influenced by) food industry groups, agricultural companies, and other businesses with a massive stake in making sure you eat the food they pack and sell—and they’re willing to spend politically to make sure the government recommends their products.
The first point reminds me of how until early 2010s nutritionism seemed to be basically “you need N calories and practice exercises”, which dismisses that different foods, or “foods”, lead to different causalities in human’s body.
Ultra processed, refined, added sugar, are just some of the villains…
Paabo sequenced the genome of the Neanderthal and also discovered the previously unknown hominin Denisova. His work showed the genomic changes that came to differentiate humans and their closest cousins. He also showed that both Neanderthals and Denisovans contributed genes that still exist in modern humans.
“By revealing genetic differences that distinguish all living humans from extinct hominins, his discoveries provide the basis for exploring what makes us uniquely human,” the Nobel committee said.
Their work has not only taught scientists more about the Neanderthals, but it is also credited with having helped modern medicine during the COVID pandemic.
“From the genome of Neanderthals, we can learn what defines modern humans. One of our big findings was that a major risk factor for severe COVID is a gene variant that has come down from the Neanderthals,” said Zeberg. “And we believe a million people have died [with COVID] because of that gene variant.”
other people’s help should be just a supplement for the awareness to clean-up if things get messy (since the first few steps are often really hard).
People can give them a hand no problem; but the most important is maintainance. So teach they what, how, when, why to organize, giving real examples they can use/practice, to search for more information, to be explict about the importance on maintenance… to actually change their mindsets and habits.
Brain’s short term reward pathway. Dopamine, … Industries/Market are clearly exploiting people just like with any other addicting product (why do you think there are added sugars to processed foods, even ones that are supposed to be “healthy”?)… directly chemically induced addiction like that is IMO the worst type of.
E-cigarettes simulate the action of smoking, but without tobacco combustion. […] The e-cigarette aerosol usually contains propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, flavors, aroma transporters, and other substances.
I did not see the vid by the way.
offering to help clean and organize (for free!) the homes of local women struggling with depression. Binkley’s tweet earned likes and retweets galore, inspiring others to roll up their sleeves and follow her generous, compassionate example.¹
Not sure what help implies but depending it can be risky because many disorganized people truly have disorganization as an habit; they just don’t think about where they are putting things and just put anything anywhere they find it most easy. So by just organising their stuff like that they won’t learn anything, they won’t maintain their homes organized; it will eventually become a mess all over again.
On the organization->productivity argument, that does not seem to be a direct causality. There is a video with that famous Japanese scientist showing his messy office; and Linus Torvalds’ office was arguably messy as well.
For that type of claim it is better to link/read the primary source instead
Other access options > open manuscript https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028393217301318
I would also take special care to look into the authors’ previous works and methodologies
btw this dates back to 2017
I dislike the free software scene seems to prioritize clones, it is not innovative. For innovation there is a need to do both research and development (not only construction, but also requirements, design and architecture, …), while free software clones skip the hard part and just go directly to construction. Well fortunately we got many innovative free software though.
It’s profitable to companies doing that; they know well they will eventually be caught, but that doesn’t matter. Only if they could make such companies pay double the damage they cause they would think twice before doing that (so make Oracle pay 100 billion). But the government won’t let it happen, because the government is compliant and benefits from this.
If the US historically had not take part in such activities worldwide I would not have made that claim. Because the US have done so much imperialist activities that lead to war, military dictatorships, … it is only logical to assume US involvement.
And it is not the first time US tries to fuck up China specifically
Also of course some people in China will be legitimately angry with the regime (ever saw that nail houses thing?), but not assuming US involvement is naive.