0x520

Not defending democrats at all, but didn't Nate Silvers polling engine consistently favor democrats polls? I would say Democrats are loosing because they have created an echo-chamber (of which Nate is a part), in which alternatives are not allowed even if those alternatives are; we shouldn't do a genocide in gaza or hey, actually the most accurate polls have consistently showed Harris losing. If they could actually listen to what their constituents want for once, maybe they could have a majority, but also if Nate Silver could stop inflating their polling they could get a realistic idea of how they are doing with their strategy of telling the proles how they should feel about the perfect, infallible Biden econony and potebtially readjust that strategy or run more popular candidates. 🤷🤷🤷

I was gonna say, I got Molly-FOSS from F-droid, but I actually had to go back and check. It checks out though. I did also get obtainium so I can keep a better eye on updates and actually check the changes on git before updating something as important as secure, encrypted coms. Also I figured I should really start checking the signature each update from now on.

Is there anything specifically wrong with molly. It seems more locked down by default and is fully open source. Seems better to me.

From this picture this could be a few things, but I am leaning toward Laetiporus Cinncinatus (one type of chicken of the woods) very late in the season after the color has gone out of it. But it could also be something like a black staining polypore. If you go back earlier in the season next year and it's bright orange you would be able to confirm that it is one of the types of chicken of the woods (Some type of Laetiporus). I say Cinncinatus because it is growing out of the ground next to the tree, but it could just as easily be Sulphureous attached to a root that has died or something.

If you look in your access logs, or /var/log/nginx/access.log and look for user agents in the log file that indicate things like chatgptbot, etc. Then add if ($http_user_agent ~* "useragent1|useragent2|... useragents") { return 403; } to the server block of your websites config file in /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/. You can also add a robots.txt that forbids scraping. Chatgpt generally checks and respects that... for now. This paired with some of the stuff above should work.

Its also funny how you chose to infer how I feel about your choice to eat meat, which I actually never addressed. That's just how YOU feel about what I said. What's funny is that you are the one appealing to emotion, with your strawman argument about religion. In reality, this article makes conclusions based on a body of peer reviewed science. You claim you don't like their slant and expect everybody to come along with you, when frankly nobody asked your opinion and in reality that is closer to what religions do in demanding atheists disprove god. This article actually demonstrates proof of facts with cited science. You claim those studies must all be wrong because they don't prove your argument without so much as offering an alternative demonstrated by anything we can verify. So you're essentially appealing to the idea of meat eating as an infallible diety for which you will accept no proof that contradicts its divinity. Again, its 100% emotion. Its just hilarious at this point. I'm having fun. You?

Or: All my emotions are science, by Mr. Rational himself. Its actually hilarious how much time you are willing to spend showing that your emotional responses are actually scientific with more emotional rhetoric and how little time you are willing to put into showing a single way that a single point in the article is wrong using science that shows otherwise. "I don't like the rhetorical slant of the article," does literally nothing to disprove the science they useto support their conclusions. But you are clearly the one single person on this planet that doesn't let their emotions guide what they believe. Ok.

Wow, another emotional comment from Mr. Rational himself. Did I hurt your feewings?

Sure, but that legislation is not on the table because the meat lobby wont even let people see what the inside of a slaughterhouse looks like and actually because of their lobbying power the exact opposite of what you are suggesting is true; instead of taxing meat, our tax dollars go to subsidize meat to keep it cheaper than plant based alternatives. We do actually need people to change individual habits, because the political machine has huge incentives not to change at all. Perhaps if the plant based lobby could become big enough to challenge the meat lobby we could make bigger changes, but that will require individuals making small changes in their diets first.

Again with appeals to emotion. What proof do you have that this is an agenda and not valid science apart from you don't like the conclusions?