I mean, yeah. All of this. Absurd.

But, FWIW, offloading cheap tat onto charity shops is not going to work well. It costs them money to put it on a shelf and it probably takes up more space than it is worth. Plus, they very likely can’t sell electrical equipment that has had its cord chopped up and repaired, or at least not without spending more on having it tested than they could sell it for anyway.

Next time, find a friend with small feet who would like to take it off your hands.

Yes, yes it does.

You know that money isn’t dug out of the ground, right? There’s no gold standard any more. The number of exchange tokens is irrelevant when you’re being extorted (most obviously on housing costs).

That’s true. To be clear, I’m not saying poverty is necessary. I’m saying it’s not because of the super rich (at least in the West). Nor am I saying the super-rich are useful.

If there is enough to go around, then your money-based maths must be incorrect. You’re contradicting yourself. Which is it?

It’s a bit more complicated than just adding up all the money and dividing it by the number of people.

Rich people don’t spend their money, they use it to outbid each other for control of existing assets that the rest of us need and have no choice but to pay them for. Instead of spending that money on things that other people get paid to make (the “trickle down” lie), they use it to extort us for access to things we need to survive.

There is plenty enough in this world to go around. That so many have so little is nothing to do with the amount of arbitrary exchange tokens that exist.

No… at the store, where the parked vehicle is blocking your access.

If you need the loading ramp you could still use the spot and just reverse if it’s on the side he’s taking up.

Not if you can’t get into the vehicle in order to reverse it. There’s a reason they have protected width on both sides.

95% of people are not USian and also, can read the requested date format correctly.

Because Lemmy, as Reddit, is focused on topics not people. It’s not for influencers. Avatars on discussion boards are weird and unnecessary.

downvoted to oblivion for asking for a source

People who want to monetise their images need to add a credit to them. When I save an image and know who created it (which is very rare), I put their name in the name of the image I save so that I can give credit if I reuse it. If there’s an associated URL that belongs to the creator, I’ll bookmark it with the same name as the image so I can find it and link to it when I use the image.

That’s a lot of work to do on behalf of creators who cannot be arsed to sign their own images. Most of the time, I can’t do it because I have no idea where it came from anyway.

And they can sign images but not easily add a clickable URL so that’s not a perfect solution anyway.

I know this doesn’t cover all of the click-thefts. But a lot of those click-thefts aren’t really thefts. They’re crediting the original but it’s the repost that goes viral. That’s something that can’t really be avoided without some tools operating in the background to reallocate clicks to the creator. And that’s not going to happen because the hosts of the click-thefts have absolutely no interest in it happening.

There are some simple ways to avoid accidental theft though. On Twitter (old Twitter, I know nothing of recent Twitter), big accounts often (accidentally) stole likes and RTs by quote-retweeting instead of just retweeting. Most of the time, there was no need for them to add a comment. Just a straight retweet would have sent interactions to the original instead. There are some similar choices that can be made on other social media. Here, for example, an archive link is often the only way for many people to view the article. But if the original source is considered less evil enough to deserve the clicks, linking the original and providing an archive link is probably better than just using an archive link in the main post.

Lot of different issues, not all of them solvable, I don’t think.

Fair

No one has even quantified the entire ecosystem of Loch Ness. What makes you so cocksure of yourself?

but there’s a fixed food supply

You understand that fish breed, right? That all the food that any of us will ever need for generations to come does not currently exist in the here and now?

It’s a stunt to encourage tourism to the area. You don’t need to get upset about people having a bit of fun.

It’s a massive, massive lake. It could sustain several Nessies, should any exist.

Obviously. Equally obviously, the reason is profit. Tasty boots?

Red blood cell capacity of modern menstrual products: considerations for assessing heavy menstrual bleeding

No study exists comparing the capacity of currently available menstrual hygiene products using blood.

They don’t have to explain how they know. Literature searches are standard, and done before doing research like this. Funders want to know if they’re wasting their money on a question that has already been answered, and whether the proposed methods are appropriate given what has been done, and learnt, before.

That’s not to say that all literature searches are perfect. You can check on PubPeer for any howls of anguish from unacknowledged researchers. But the only legal requirement for testing is tampons due to toxic shock syndrome and its relationship to absorbency. It’s really unlikely that manufacturers are doing the tests without being forced to and, if they have done any, really unlikely they would fail to publish their results if they liked the results. If they are suppressing unwelcome results, the research might as well not exist.

They already deleted mine and won’t answer any emails about it. You leave a project on the back-burner for a while, they introduce a new charging structure, and oopsie, everything is gone.

Fuck you Dropbox.

They’re billion dollar products, they absolutely could be made to test them if anyone cared enough to make them produce accurate labelling. If we can do it with food, we can do it with sanitary products. The NHS could do it, if it wanted to. It does plenty of independent trials to check up on how badly Pharma is lying to them this time.

Every drug you take is tested on real people. They are asked to give informed consent, of course. But we don’t just decide that something looks like it might work and start prescribing it. Testing period products is a trivial ask compared to something like chemotherapy. Bless every single person who consents to participate, we’d be fucked without them.