Unfortunately fascist spaces will exist and cannot be prevented because of the core nature of Lemmy/fediverse architecture. Anyone can start their own instance and post whatever they want.

However, if the main popular instances defederate with them, then most users won't have to see those posts.

I will gladly listen to you ramble about your niche interest but only if it is somewhat similar to one of mine.

Most likely but it's funnier if you don't think about that.

They're measuring how many people can pass through a fixed point in space in an hour, not how long it takes one person to get from point A to point B.

So not really time or energy, but quantity.

There's a "Communities" button at the top of the page (or in the top menu on mobile) that shows all communities on your current instance.

I'm not sure for your search question. It looks like they tried to implement that function in the general search tool (magnifier icon at the top/menu), but filtering by a specific community doesn't seem to work for me. There are still some bugs to work out on the site in general.

I haven't used an app for reddit since Alien Blue. I was just on the mobile website. I can still understand the problem with what they're doing. I don't know why so many people can't understand a problem unless it affects them personally.

I have definitely seen studies saying that people who play video games are better surgeons. Surgeons who don't play video games take longer to develop their fine motor coordination to the same level of competence.

Muslims say that music is Haram because it is said so in Hadith, does that make music objectively wrong?

That is the exact opposite of what the above comment said. An objective view of morality would say that the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the act of making music is an objective truth. If music is "right", then music is right, regardless of what Muslims or any other people say, and vice versa.

It means you can't come to a correct moral judgement just by taking a poll of the people around you.

It matters to them, so I guess you are not the type of user they want. It's annoying, but if they want their server to be more exclusive, they can do that. It is the beauty and the pain of federation.

I think the raw oils are not that bad (maybe in quantity it becomes an issue). Coconut oil I know is saturated fat, so that can be bad for your heart.

I think the bigger issue is how they are used in processed food. Just about every processed food has "partially hydrogenated soybean oil" or something like that, which is basically the worst possible thing for cholesterol.

It's the same with how everyone started using Crisco because lard was thought to be unhealthy. It turns out heavily processed vegetable oils are worse.

Shown Furcotte taking it up the ice.

He passes to McSriff.

Oh, a big hit by Bobson Dugnutt! He collects the puck and sends it on to Dandleton.

Dandleton now with the puck. Across to Sweeney - But it's picked off by Smorin!

He finds Noginly on the breakaway! Noginly - He Scores!

Noginly hits the brakes at the last second to slip it past the bumper of goaltender Mike Truk!
And the Jonsonbill Nailers take a 2-1 lead, with 3 minutes remaining in the second period.

And the income gap is caused in part by the education gap which is caused by the housing gap because schools are funded by property taxes.

There are a lot of systems that need to be fixed.

That's the next step. Once we agree that someone is right and someone is wrong, then we can start talking about the definition of "moral good". And that is a very difficult and complicated discussion. But just because it's hard to define doesn't necessarily mean it's not real.

It's always been pretty obvious that ethanol fuel is a way to greenwash gasoline cars while throwing more money to the corn industry. The only benefit is that it's renewable (but the corn industry in its current state relies heavily on non-renewable petroleum products.)

Always good to see the science though.

I havent seen that episode, but it is kind of an issue how whenever you try to put a bunch of poor/homeless people together, others start to avoid that area and jobs/services become scarce.

I like the idea of "mixed income housing". Apartment buildings with a mix of free, cheap, and regular priced units. The standard units would probably be valued a bit lower than the normal market price, giving mid-income people an incentive to live there, and the homeless people who move in get to be part of a normal-ish community.

100 homeless people stuck in one place can cause a lot of chaos, but a small small group here and there seems a lot more manageable.

These technologies to capture small amounts of "leftover" energy are neat, but the problem is that by definition you will never get as much out of them as you would from "bulk" energy sources. Often you end up spending more effort/tech/materials for a smaller output, so you're just better off building more solar panels and investing in some storage for cloudy days.

If there happens to be some cheap easy solution to get little pieces of energy here and there, then sure, why not? But it's not going to fill the gap, and it's not worth spending major effort on for a small return.

This is tricky, but I think it's not all bad. At least if you can develop a reliable hydrogen infrastructure, it opens up the opportunity to convert it to green hydrogen later. Although green hydrogen sites may have different requirements that make it hard to retrofit. I don't know.

I also don't know that the technology is ready to make use of it on the demand side.

So the majority of people agree on what exactly? What do they mean when they say something is morally right or ok?

Another solution then: automatically download/cache a user's most frequently played tracks. I know downloading is a premium feature or whatever but they should consider it if it would save them money.

What's not clear to me is whether these edits will be passed on to future generations of trees. I think that's usually not the case with CRISPR, but this article is talking about "breeding", so maybe it is the case here. The phrase "building a better forest" is particularly disturbing as well.

My concern here is basically that we don't want to be replacing wild forests with genetically engineered monoculture. Replacing millions of years of evolution and biodiversity with 1 or 2 "optimal" genetic lines leaves the population vulnerable to things like disease and environmental changes. A diverse population is much more resilient against these dangers, since the differences in individuals may allow some to survive where others couldn't.

So as long as the usage is limited to specific tree farms, it's probably no worse than other modern agricultural practices. I just hope they don't want to replace wild forests with CRISPR trees.