Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men "were men") have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.
All true, but that doesn't disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.
Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn't categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.
To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of inconclusive or null results doesn't mean there is categorically no link -- it could equally mean that more research is needed.
That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.
Ear buds or IEMs typically have a much higher sensitivity than full sized headphones. The higher the output power of your PC's headphone out, the louder your earbuds will be at any given volume %.
There isn't anyway around this except to manually change the volume whenever you use your earbuds.
Actually, it's nothing more than lazy slander pepetuated by duopoly apologists.
There's zero proof Stein is "Putin backed". She once sat at the same table at an international conference and barely spoke to the man. That's it.
Meanwhile, AOC has been publicly performing as a genuine progressive for her voters and constituents all while voting and acting like a corporate Democrat behind the scenes.
Sure, because our current economic system creates governments and laws that protect private capital and short-term exploitation at the expense of the natural world.
I do see hope in the book, though. Once you look beyond the human scale, it shows us that trees are always going to outlast us, no matter how hard we try to destroy our environment. The question is - can we learn from their patience and adaptability before we screw ourselves beyond the point of no return?
I haven't finished it yet, but so far the fatalism seems to be balanced by the reminder that we are intrinsically linked to the natural world, and that it is never too late to seek solace in it.
They allowed the family of an Israeli hostage on stage. Why not afford Palestinian Americans the same courtesy to have one of their own represented? Hell, they could have stood alongside the hostage's family to show solidarity and hope for peace in the future.
The Uncommitted movement did everything the "right way" -- they went through the official channels and offered the DNC a list of speakers and gave them permission to vet the speech however they wanted. But apparently that was still too big of an ask.
It's a perfectly good source. Is there anything about their argument that you find unsound, or is it simply because it makes you uncomfortable?
I'm not advocating either way, although the horrors I’ve seen committed in Gaza are on a whole other level than anything I’ve witnessed before.
I wouldn’t blame anyone who votes third party, or even sits this one out.
According to this YouGov poll of least <> most trusted news sources , CNN lands bang in the middle of the pack. So not as bad as FOX, but not as high as PBS or ABC.
As for my own 2¢, all the US cable news channels are varying degrees of bad. Best to avoid, generally speaking.