spooky month 👻

The website doesn't really care; they have hosting costs so if you're not paying with money or by accepting ads then to them you're worse than not visiting at all as you consume resources, so it's good if you leave?

no it's not, it's a loophole in the legislation that was actually first used and is still most popular in France?

For mammals we are, sure, but there's loads of things that'd kill humans that other animals chow down on perfectly happily, especially when it comes to microorganisms, mushrooms and the rotting things they're often found in/around

I don't think scavenging is right also given that humans used to mainly pick fresh fruits and persistence hunt, both of which are very fresh food which is not overlooked or left by others... Given the fact we picked fresh fruits and hunted for fresh meat, being resistant to berry and fruit based poisons was more important than microorganism based ones, so it makes a lot of sense that so many of the non-intoxicating poisons we like are from fruits and berries

To be honest, yes they do

If the government provides a safety net for those with no money, it's reasonable for them to ban leading causes of losing money, like gambling, to save money for those who are just unfortunate

If the government provides healthcare, it's reasonable for them to ban leading causes of ill health, like smoking, to save capacity for those with less avoidable illnesses or injuries

By "burn it" I meant turn it into charcoal... Charcoal averages 80% carbon (range 50-95%), whereas depending on the type coal ranges from 60-92% carbon, with the purest type, anthracite, being 86-92% carbon

Given a mass production system would likely result in more uniform carbon content near the top of the range, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they could be swapped out pretty easily

Coal has a bunch of impurities compared to charcoal I thought?

And if the repeated melting is done by burning biomass/charcoal or with clean(er) energy then it's not a huge issue

What biomass grows the fastest without being waterlogged - I imagine bamboo or sugarcane or something

Grow that, and burn it to make carbon neutral steel; bonus points if you do it in a highrise/underground farm but frankly some medium term reversible environmental damage is preferable to killing off way more with climate change

What model and prompt are you using to get a bag of x?

I tried to make a goldfish in a bag and a bag of brown leaves with multiple sdxl checkpoints at various times and it either put a handbag next to the target or straight up ignored it

wake me up when october ends

BBC live TV doesn't have ads either?

I'd be less surprised if the pirated version was slowed for some reason but equally BBC could have got it off another network who do run ads

I figured it was "in a merry-go-round" but hey I guess that fits too

you could always symlink .Trash to /dev/null if you don't care about potential accidents

because you'd be evading paying them right?

Dominance over the food chain; dominance over the environment; dominance over where other species (and their own) are even allowed to live; dominance over the genetics of other species, etc.

I was 99% sure Finland for the first one though, but somewhat makes sense

No it's not... it's purely emphasis/stress via vowel reduction in English?

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

I doubt society will go fully paperless, there are times when you need a thing that can be crushed, folded, whatever and doesn't run out of battery, so unless e-ink technology develops in a very specific way I don't think every eventually will be replaced, and even without purely functional applications I think art would never ever go fully paperless for many data security (leaking art before it's complete), economic (things are more expensive when they're limited in supply, and making either legal or illegal copies of digital things is so much easier) and sentimental reasons (it's just nicer to have something physical) reasons

you can change the relative size of things with zoom

I think it's more that a lot of people only think of badly done makeup and see well done makeup as natural beauty, which it enhances rather than contrasting with

Of course someone with clown-face-adjacent levels of makeup is going to look worse, but if done to make the skin look natural but smoother, eyes look natural but bigger and features natural but better defined then yes, I think very few people will find that less attractive