I'd say one point thirty-two. As others noted, much depends on geography.
Personally, I say the "actual" number up to 3 or 4 decimal places, with a lot of the reason depending on the specific context. If I had to asses, I'd say I say the "whole" number in over 50% of cases for 3 digits, and in about 10% for 4 digits. Anything over 4 decimal places and I fall back to individual digits.
It's not meaningless - it moves the comment/post a bit higher for others to see on some sorting options. It just isn't summated per user and obsessed over.
Physicist: All I see is a bunch of particles existing
FYI it's a toggle in about:preferences (a.k.a. Settings).
There's nothing against central systems in anarchism, only against central_ized_ ones.
I agree, anarchism is very unlikely to affect any meaningful change. It probably won't be able to get the critical mass necessary to do things since most anarchists are the laisez-faire type (in the sense they will not "force feed" your ideology - they'll just tell you it exists and what it is and leave it up to you to decide, NOT in the capitalism sense).
Is that good? Depends on your outlook. It's always a good defense to let people decide for themselves, but how big of a reason is this for "the anarchist failure"?
The real problem with leftists is the unending infighting. Disagreements on a non-fundamental level have caused many movements to fall into obscurity, and whenever a revolution did happen, it was always an auth-type that got rid of the anarchist types through underhanded means.
Call this wishful thinking, but: It's only a matter of time until a positive velvet revolution happens with no real ideologue leader that will be based on intelectualism rather than a personality cult and authoritarianism.
Frequently the auth-types took over the means of power by stabbing the anarchists in the back (eg. Stalin).
A revolution, while requiring guns, requires an incredible mass of people from all walks of life to happen - the current means of government must be unworkable for at least a quarter of the population and the vast majority needs to be at least indifferent to the change.
Central organising is a concern, but anarchism isn't opposed to its very idea, it's opposed to running the central aspects with an iron fist.
Since that causes silly problems like people desagreeing, the bane of any movement which, if it wants to be successful, absolutely has to get shit done as opposed to endlessly polemicising about meaningless details. Having a meaningful arbitrable solution is a good way to deal with that.
About the media: I agree, western propaganda is bad. But, you have to know this little fact: much of the propaganda (western or otherwise) isn't created as propaganda - it isn't created by someone woth the explicit goal of "I have to paint xy as good and z as bad". Most of it is indoctrinated people creating something they like and want to create. Any such creation follows from the creator's material conditions, including their outlook on life, which is shaped by propaganda they themselves consumed.
Essentially, Hollywood is a giant echo chamber. The US is. Any other society is, as well. It just depends on how strong the echo isself is - does it die down immidiately or does one sound create an undying cacophony?
While there are pieces of target-created propaganda coming out of Hollywood, I dare say that most are, in fact, unintended propaganda - people come up with stories they like, think up some "what-ifs", a plot, heroes, villians and conflicts.
With the US being as individualist as it is, no wonder that the vast majority of heroes are solo players, not even fanatical members of an organization. They're almost always painted in this US-ian individualist manner becuase the artist is a product of the US culture, mentality and media. Hiwever, the same applies to any other place.
A notable counterexample is the priest - be him good or bad, he's not a "solo player" - he's always a member of his church and acts accordingly, which isn't the result of the church's unending current effort to propagandize all priests as members of a highly hierarchical organization - they did that a long time ago, and it's paying dividends even now: people know priests to be just "a cog in the machine".
As the saying goes: don't attribute to malice what you can to stupidity or ignorance.
Manufactured consent is a hell of a drug.
Typed up on mobile, please forgive any sausage finger induced typos.
I'd say putting up cameras violates the person's dignity, but knowing how hellish these places can end up I'm not surprised well-meaning people have to do that to protect their loved ones.
Linux definitely has a learning curve but
I'd like to interject here a bit.
For a "normal" user (read non-tech, perhaps even a bit lower on the "tech literacy" scale) any change requires a learning curve. While we Linux people don't have too big of a problem switching distros and UI setups, someone "non-techy" finds the switch from Win7 to Win10 challenging, as well as from Win10 to Win11. We're not in the 95/98 era when a "name" upgrade meant you don't have to install USB drivers off a floppy - the UI stad the same. (which just means Greg won't need to bother with that while he sets up your new computer)
Nowadays, the move from 10 to 11 is anything but "painless" to me - and for me it's just annoyances. For people less tech-savvy it's an enigma at times.
So, my point is - the switch from Win10 to Win11 will probably be worse than Win10 to Mint for old people (mostly). Those deeply rooted into varous ecosystems aren't the focus of this comment.
Is it just me, or do the two thugs look way too much like thugs?
I disagree. Wanting to know, researching and googling isn't a bad thing. Sure, googling does always make the problem seem larger than it is, but other thanthe anxiety there are no ill effects.
Do go to your doctor. Let them take a look at you, and ask for concrete tests. I know a family friend who felt off and had gained weight quite rapidly with no change in lifestyle. She went to the doctor who brushed it off and 6 mo. later she died from a cancer the size of a large infant. The doctor said she should stop worrying about her weight. True story.
Most definitely, this won't haooen to you, but remember - doctors are human too. They're also lazy and like to not spend their budget on tests. And then stuff like this happens. It was totally avoidable. The doctor just needed to take a fucking look. She'd have noticed somethig was off. Now she has no job. I'd say I was sad for the doc, but it wasn't even incompetence that caused this avoidable death, but rather pure laziness.
Morale of the story: Looking out for yourself is not a bad thing. Try not to worry, see a doctor, inquire and ask for a check-up. It takes only a little bit of their time. If they say all is fine without doing jack-shit, call them out on it. Hell, be a Karen if need be - it's your health on the line, not your kid's football match causing you to get home 5 minutes later than usual.
Odds are you'll worry much less when you know you for sure your're fine than when you have no clue what causes your ailment.
IANAL. Also IDKWYL (I don't know wher you live), but in the sane Western world (the EU), there's no need for a notice in your case - usually it's a good idea to check with the landlords/tenants wether they plan on renewing the lease or not so you both know where the other side is standing.
And, of course, since the contract is time-bound, the assumption is that both possibilities (renewal and no renewal) are on the table, and neither require any side to go out of their way to announce their intent on what happens after the contract expires.
The 'default' option is no renewal - otherwise there is no meaning in making it time-bound and burdening the parties with the need to re-establish a new agreement each contract term. So the need to give a notice of "I plan to do xy after the contract" makes no sense, let alone it carrying contractual punishments.
You weren't required to give a notice. Even if the contract stated so, that clause would most likely get nullified, which I sincerely doubt (again, in most of Europe), since it disproportionally and predatorily benefits one party.
And again, IANAL. You should get one.
But, were I your lawyer (which I most definitely am not), I would scold you for writing the notice in the firdt place since it puts you in a submissive position (your landlord can now claim that by giving notice you "showed" that you "think" you "owe" the landlord notice, ergo you owe them money for the 2 days in May (assuming a 30-day notice), which they conveniently round up to an entire month. I sincerely hope you didn't include explicit (and unnecessary) wording along the lines of THIS IS A 30-DAY NOTICE AS PER $WHATEVER ANNOUNCING OUR INTENTION TO MOVE OUT BY DATE.
Of course, this statement makes no sense. The contract meets its natural end by the date given and that's it. No notices, no payments, no apartment rented out. A renewal requires the good-will of both parties.
My IANAL advice for you going forward is: Stick to the German philosophy - keep things as brief as possible to give the "enemy" less ammo on the one, and to deal with any edge-cases that don't go in your favour.
It's a delicate balance. A fine art, even - the art of writing contracts. And it's hard.
A good contract leaves no room for large gaps in interpretation (loopholes), but allows some flexibility. It also keeps the parties on equal footing (neither subjegated to the others) is in itself a work of fine art.
Bad contracts are (or should be) treated as insults. Shuld the insult be bad enough, ripping the piece of paper conveying the contract out of protest. (Remember - the contract is not the piece of paper, but the words on it and an oral agreement is just as valid as a written contract, but harder to prove - sometimes the legislature decides to nullify all oral contracts for specific "high-impact" things like home sale, but that's another can of worms).
Going forward, do not be afraid to reject contracts and call for a middle ground (suggest amendments) which protect your rights and interests. Not doing it is a terrible idea - the only thing you have to "lose" in such a case is all the obligations that weigh you down from the bad contract.
Germans would actually, I assure you, find it insulting if you just accepted the initial proposal of a contract if it isn't a fixed template given by the Minstries (in that case not amending is acceptable since they strike a good balance, but amending is by no means impossible - these templates are, after all, mere suggestions meant to be acceptable for the majority of uses/circumstances).
outright confirmed the exclusion [...] Notably, he didn't specify whether or not
Yeah, that's what "outright" means all right.
It merely says "go Eurpoean", not "go domestic". Of course you can join!