Is their blood blue?

I don’t know James Smith, from Phoenix, Arizona. Social security number 523-098-1322. Is your data safe?

Imagine how you’d freak out if I, by change, got it right.

Many countries outside America does not cover dentist in social public health services.

They like premium bones or something.

In my country we have public healthcare but not dentists. If you want teeth you have to pay.

If you are not using a magnetic needle and a steady hand, can you even call yourself a programmer?

This kind of control tend to be ip based, like cookies in the eu. So if they don’t know they won’t know. And if they know means that they knew. Nothing changes on that regard.

They know it already.

IP reveals general location.

Sharing is caring <3

Virgin API user vs chad scrapper.

This is technically feasible, and bussiness don’t need to know your id. If anonymous government certificates are issued.

But I’m morally against it. We need to both educate on the dangers of internet and truly control harmful platforms.

But just locking it is bad for ociety. What happens with kids in shitty families that find in social media (not Facebook, think prime time Tumblr) a way to scape and find that there are people out there not as shitty as their family. Now they are just completely locked to their shitty family until it’s too late.

In my country they talked about this. And they thought of a different approach.

The government were to emit anonymous digital certificates after validate your identity. And then the websites were only required to validate these anonymous digital certificates.

Or even it was talk that the government could put a certificate validation in front of the affected ip.

So the bussiness won’t have your ip. Only a verification by the government that you are indeed over certain age.

I don’t know how they are going to do over there.

Here the plan for the same goal is force any social media company to request a digital certificate when entering, or directly overtaking the ip of the social media and force a certificate check to let the user through. This certificates would be expedited by the government to people over certain age.

The haven’t implemented yet, as they were going to start using the system to ban porn for minors and got a lot of backslash.

It’s technologically doable, some kid will always find a way to enter but vast majority will not (next to a bunch of adults that will stop using them because they cannot be bothered with the same system). Moral considerations aside.

Backed on Global Gender Gap Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report

Or any other gender equality index that always put India on the bottom. Very bad.

Democrats failed to solve people’s issues. That’s just it.

But Americans are in for a hard awakening if they think that in general Latin American population is progressive or left leaning. And that democrats have their guaranteed vote.

Each person is different, of course. And the average doesn’t change any person individual values.

But on average Latin American countries tend to have overwhelming conservative cultures when compared with USA/Europe.

This doesn’t negate any Latin American person who is progressive, of course. Just talking about averages and the reality that was shown by the polls.

In general Democrats, and any left leaning party, think that because they defend immigrants, immigrants will support them by default. This has been shown far from the truth. If someone have conservative values they will probably vote for a conservative party. That’s just it. One person won’t become progressive (as in stopping being sexist or transphobic) just because they moved from one country to another. An immigrant is a whole person with their own sets of values, both before and after they migrate, and won’t be reduced to “being an immigrant” when voting, specially once they are legally settled in a place and their residence won’t be at risk, they will just vote for their values. If they have conservative values they’ll vote conservative if they have progressive values they’ll vote progressive.

I never bought the “world biggest democracy” publicity stun. And each day it’s more and more obvious that India is not a true democracy. They have always prosecuted and try to kill anyone opposing the regime, and half the population (women) don’t have the same rights as men. They are one of the lowest countries in gender equality index. Without half the population it is imposible to be a democracy.

How do you do Zubat?

I can get Golbat, but Zubat is crazy.

This just reinforced my will to continue with the linux evangelization.

Where I live there’s not many teslas.

But I saw one the other day and it was squeaking like a cheap plastic toy.

I wasn’t going to buy one. But seeing such bad quality construction even noticable by afar, reaffirmed my choice.

We need both.

Sustainability is defined by the amount of resources that a population can take from the environment without permanently destroying it. For a bigger population that amount of resources that can be used before reaching that threshold is smaller by person.

Just imagine a tribe living of a fruit tree that gives 10 apples a year. Maybe a tribe of 10 individuals can live of that tree but a tribe. But what happen when the tribe grows and suddenly there’s 100 individuals trying to live of a 10 apple tree? It’s illogical to take population out of the equation, because it’s one of the biggest factors, the second biggest factor is quality of life (how many apples we eat a year), and the only factor that you are considering relevant is the one with the smallest impact that is how efficiently we recollect our apples. That last factor is the one with the smallest impact in the whole equation, and it’s the only you seem to consider to solve our problem. We, of course, need to be efficient because it cost nothing, but efficiency by itself is not solving the whole problem.

Your own equation and your own logic is supporting my argument that we NEED to reduce population.

The only thing left against it is the dogma.

Gender is a social construct that is, gladly, starting to fail.

I hope that in some years people would stop refering to having any gender, and they’ll just have the social behavior they’d like best when they like it best. And will only discuss their sex when it’s medically relevant.

Of course.

But the ideal course of action would be to also limit population worldwide.

So each human have a bigger pollution/resource consumption quota, thus being able to live a better life.

I think quality of life is going to decline worldwide because overpopulation (it probably already started in some countries) and the only government regulation that could prevent that is a regulation on the number of population.