Cocktails without alcohol cost way too much for what they are. That would be like paying 15 bucks for a burger without meat.

Restaurants sometimes also have like dozens of types of beer, wine, etc. but the best non-alcoholic they can do is a water or a coca cola softdrink?

In dead case, I fish you the bessed.

(Their point was that Spotify’s free version is sufficient because they only want the things mentioned)

Bro, “Puritanism” is a religious movement of the 16-17th century. Maybe you mean purism?

(Serious) question: How do you stand not being able to select individual tracks? I honestly would rather listen to my music in any of the free frontend apps rather than being limited to that extent…

Honestly, what does this change? For paid users nothing, and the free version was always unusable with you not being able to individually select songs.

The US government doesn’t want an adversary government to have the data of its citizens (because of varios reasons, including mass manipulation for example). They would of course have no issue with having that data themselves though (also because then they would be more in control over how the data is handled).

But not for a foreign government (from their perspective).

…do you not understand how basic math works?

I do, actually. My whole point was that you need basic maths in your everyday life even though you have a calculator on your phone. You jumped right into the 6th comment in this thread without reading what this is about, didn’t you?

You don’t know how much you need to pay for it if you only know the price of 1kg but you buy half a kilo.

Reminds me of Bo Burnham’s song New Math

Buy if you want to buy only half a kg, you don’t know how much it costs because it only lists the price for a full kg. Do you start pulling out your Excel for that?

“Can I get that salad medium-rare please?”

You literally dont have to pay for that. You can choose to not do that. It would be pretty dumb of you to do that but it’s possible.

Germany provided Israel with anti-tank weapons and also training muniton. That’s it (according to official statements). Doesn’t sound like something you could commit a genocide with to me…

What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide? Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion? (I’m genuienly curious, couldnt really find anything specific on this)

Your honour, our client can’t have intent because they’re demonstrably criminally insane, we know because we caused that insanity". Not in that many words, but to that effect.

That’s completely made up, either by you or by another person. What they actually say is that Israel’s intent is to defend against the armed attacks of the Hamas, not to commit a genocide.

More like: “Your honor, our client is just trying to defend themselves, they are not doing this to commit a genocide”

The thing about insanity is made up by the person eho posted that comment. What they actually say is that Israel’s intent is to defend themselves against the armed attacks by the Hamas, so self-defense, and not to commit a genocide.

What part is wrong then? That’s pretty nuch what they say in the article.

11-20 = -9 10-19 = -9 -9 = -9

Fixed that for you.