This seemed like such an arbitrary law that I went looking for it and apparently it's a small committee (4 persons*) rule that was poorly substantiated. The rule itself has been shot down by an appeals court in 2023, but the industry obviously had already set plans in motion to change their product line ups.

"On September 13, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the CPSC’s rule on custom window coverings. The court agreed with WCMA that CPSC failed to provide an opportunity to comment on the underlying incident data, conducted a flawed cost-benefit analysis that ignored the enormous harm that the rule would have caused the multibillion-dollar custom window coverings industry, and selected an arbitrary effective date for the rule. The CPSC acknowledges that the industry will need at least 2 years to develop completely new products. So the six-month effective date would make it impossible for the window covering industry to create proven safe replacement products."

https://suncoastblinds.com/understanding-the-cpsc-rule-on-window-coverings-and-the-appeal/

• I'm not from the USA, so to me it seems very weird that this is how decisions with far reaching consequences are taken. In the eu legislation like this gets putten through the wringer in the eu Commission, probably also voted on by the eu Parliament, and then still given years preparation time and back and forth between industry/lobby groups/government. But instead this was: 4 non elected people take a vote and those 4 see no issue with a 6 month deadline. Wth, what a rugpull this would have been for the industry.

Edit to add: that rule that lost in appeal in 2023, was from November 2022, so maybe it does go in effect in november 2024, since it seems like that timetable was the biggest issue for the industry. Just speculating though, can't look it up atm.

Hitler's flak towers are not going anywhere. There's other 20th century buildings which can last a thousand years with occasional maintenance, but those flak towers, nothing will take them down.

Most very old buildings that survived to this age, survived because the locals had a use for them and maintained them, or because they had a pyramidical shape. The colloseum was a castle, the parthenon a church, ... Without that usage, we'd only have the foundations and a few basements left.

Personally I'm ok with discord for private social communication, imo not everything needs to be archived or searchable. But there's people/devs who use discord as a knowledge repository and that's the recipe for disaster imo.

The recipe: Old problem questions, solutions, how to guides, ... All hidden behind a login wall and if you do get in, then you still have to contend with the crappy search engine, so you might just as well ask the probably already answered question yet again. And one day it's probably all going poof or behind some kind of paywall. Basically also what quora has been trying to do for years, but I don't think any people with more than a few braincells complain about quora being hard to access, since most of their content stinks anyhow.

A quote from Netanyahu: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas

I already knew that Israel facilitated transfers of funds from other sources, but I didn't know that they also did direct funding and transfers. According to that wiki article, Israel was at least certainly doing that in the 1980s and 90s. Not that it really matters, Israel soliciting other parties to give money to Hamas or Israel directly giving money to Hamas, there's little difference really.

I can't find anything right away about video evidence, but I wouldn't be surprised at this point. I'd love a source for that as well.

It's a bit of a stretch, but Netanyahu used to allow Qatari funds through to Hamas and Qatar is home to the largest USA military base in the middle east. So the USA government spend money in Qatar and Qatar send money to Hamas, so one could argue that some USA tax money ended up with Hamas that way.

But in the same way all economies and trade are interconnected. It's not because my garagist gave money to his addict child, who used part of that money to buy drugs, that I'm now suddenly guilty of funding the drug trade. Money goes around.

The UK also created a marine protected island around the Chagos archipelago islands in 2010. Someone put a nice summary of it's goals on Wikipedia: "The primary purpose of the designation as a marine reserve was to create an excuse to deny the native Chagossian people the right of return. Unlike true marine reserves, the area is heavily polluted by the nearby military base, which is exempt from all restrictions imposed on the area. " That this was the actual intent is not just speculation, it's been confirmed by Wikileaks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Marine_Protected_Area

Russian shills + USA republicans began pushing propaganda for her in a big way after they couldn't find a decent angle to effectively attack Harris like they did with Biden. Leave that propaganda unchecked and she will divert more than a few votes because propaganda works, so fortunately there is a lot of pushback in the other way.

My bad, I thought it was a different spelling of the old Fleur.

My bet is on an anachronistic mistake with the flag, happens all the time. It is in style of historical regimental flags, but I think a research error is more likely than it being the actual regimental flag. There won't have been many special royal (with Fleur de Lys) regiments, so it would surprise me if we couldn't easily find that particular flag.

A historical chart of regimental flags, made in 1771, with the year that each flag was created: http://web.archive.org/web/20071028170126/http://www.cg78.fr/archives/img/db/seriea/hd/sa00110.jpg

An article on those flags and others: https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fr^r_mon.html

Plenty of white crosses, plenty of Fleur de Lys, but no flag that is a proper match..

The closest I get is this family coat of arms, which is probably more a coincidence than anything else: https://man8rove.com/fr/blason/dzcmzn9-desmier-alias-desmiers-alias-dexmier

The people who vote for her seem like the useful idiots to me, she herself more seems like a traitor to the old values of her country and the purported causes of her party. She loves foreign autocrat dictatorships and there's nothing green about helping republicans win elections.

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur_de_lys

It first appeared in the 8th century in the Frankish empire and it was adopted as a specific symbol of french royalty in the 12th century. In France it only went out of use somewhat after the french revolution in 1789, so more than a century after Quebec was conquered by England, which means that Quebec was colonized by the french when the fleur de lys was still in wide use.

Yeah, that seems to be the point. He's again appealing to his macho fascist supporters by further enabling abusive behaviour. Domestic violence has been decriminalized for years already in Russia, violence against outgroups is allowed/encouraged, they have a national snitch on your neighbour system, ... It's become a true fascist society.

Yeah, I think the joke isn't working sorry.

Running a ship aground is something the crew does to their own ship. It does not involve other ships, only their own ship + the ground of a landmass.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_grounding

I can't say that I'm surprised that the pope is endorsing someone who so eerily fits the description of an antichrist, which in this framework makes the pope a false prophet.

An article with some reasonings as to why Trump fits the bill: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/is-trump-the-antichrist

Are you doing research for a personal project or just asking for a friend?

Dogs also love to wrestle over the stick/ball/... Think 2 dogs holding onto the same stick with their teeth while growling and pulling as hard as they can, they're having fun.

The dog I grew up with (malamute) would fetch something once and then have you try to get it out of her mouth, which was impossible to win for a human, so you'd have to feign giving up and then she'd drop it. And if you then threw away the object again, she would give you "the look" after which she would saunter off and ignore you. So I'm pretty certain that she didn't like fetching, but she loved wrestling and pulling.

Or the policy where they separated children from their parents and then didn't keep track of who was family of whom, so that it was very hard and sometimes even impossible to reunite the family again in the future. Pure evil.

Reporting what questionable government sources say without enough due diligence is not the same as supporting the actions of that government. If I say that Davy was beating up Mark because Mark stole his cookie according to him, but then it turns out that there never was a cookie, then me wrongly reporting about the cookie does not mean that I ever approved of Davy beating up Mark.

I found that the NYT editorial board opposed the war in an opinion piece that was released just prior to that war, so I'm of the opinion that they opposed it. Probably as one of the few media outlets in the USA.

And I find it funny that the first and most prominent article in the pbs link is the NYT criticizing the reporting of the nyt, that's promising at least. The smh article reads like it's written to lay the blame for being dragged into the war with someone else, a narrative of "we were all duped, if only we could have known beforehand and we would have acted differently", conveniently ignoring that there were enough other international sources that called out and demonstrated that the wmd evidence was very flimsy.

Do you have examples of that support? Or an article/report that lays it out.

When I looked for it, I only found the opposite; https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/saying-no-to-war.html

So it was "exposed" that the stupid man with a fragile ego is easy to manipulate ... I think that most people, who are not in the alternative fact news bubble, knew this for years already. People have been widely comparing him to a toddler since his first year as president, and those people include his own aides/appointees. It was so common that someone even wrote a book about it: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo51128380.html.

So imo "exposed" is the wrong word, something like "demonstrated yet again" would have been better.