PlzGivHugs

The question wasn't about expecting people to be born in the country they wish to live, it was about whether citizenship by jus soli should be an option without conditions.

But why should it be an option if you don't and/or don't intend to live there?

Wouldn't the correct answer in that case just be to make it easier to immigrate and gain citizenship, rather than expecting you to be born there?

I theoretically, I would say I'm generally against it, with the understanding the citizenship is not the same as permission to live/work in the country nor the same as permission to access services.

Citizenship should generally mean that the country is your "home country" rather than place of origin. In that case, citizenship should be given to those who want to commit to participating in and improving the government and culture of the country (if only because thats where they spend most time). Where you were born doesn't relate to this strongly. What matters is how much time you'll spend here in the future, such as if your parents are citizens or permanent residents (meaning you'll likely grow up here) or if you want to move to the country permanently.

Basically, where you're born shouldn't matter. What should is your intent on living in the society you've gained influence in.

I wouldn't say the problem is with their length or simplicity. I'm sure I could enjoy a short anthology in one of these universes. The bigger problem is the fact that its embedded into a game, effectively breaking the pacing and flow of both the written text and the game. Ideally, this would at least allow you to use environmental and visual storytelling alongside the text, but this is rarely done well enough to justify all the downsides, so you end up with the worst of both worlds.

The Bethesda (and related) RPGs. The core gameplay loop just feels so shallow in both, meaning most of your time is spent wandering with nothing meaningful to do, or in spammy, often janky combat. The parts that are interesting, the character builds and the lore, aren't super involved in most of the game. You spend so little time building characters, and most of the lore is in written logs and books.

Try using the title:() operator. For example, title:(warrior OR knight). It can also be combined with others, like title:(sale) OR flair:(offering). I'm sure theres also options for content and metadata, but I don't know them off the top of my head.

Honestly, at this point Reddit's search doesn't even really feel worse than the competition. Its terrible at fuzzy searches, yes, but the fact that it has functioning search operators that it consistantly respects is so useful. Being able to search "(add OR insert OR update) AND (rest OR restful) NOT sql" is so useful.

Of course, a good fuzzy search would also be great, but no one offers that anymore, so...

Its not so much social media that ruined it, as capitalism and centralization.

Forums themselves are a form of social media, and they're (mostly) great. For Reddit and Lemmy, debatably the best part is the social elements, like the comments sections. The problem isn't the interaction or the "social" nature of it. Its that these platforms have turned into psudo-monopolies intent on controlling people and/or wringing them for every penny.

Thats not to say toxicity and capitalistic exploitation didn't exist before either. The term "flame war" is older than a lot of adults today. Unlike today though, platforms were both more decentralized meaning they were easier to manage and users could switch platform, and were less alorithmic meaning that users could more easily avoid large, bad-faith actors. You'll notice the Fediverse have both these qualities, which is part of why its done so well.

IMO, the best fix to this, would be twofold. A) break up the big monopolies and possibly the psudo-monopolies. Monopolies bad, simple enough. B) Much more difficult, but I believe that what content a site promotes, including algorithmically, should be regulated. Thats not to say sorting algorithms should be banned, but I think we need to regulate how they're used and implemented. For example, regulations could include things like requiring alternative algorithms be offered to users, banning "black box" algorithms, requiring the algorithns be publicly published, and/or banning algorithms that change based on an individual's engagement. Ideally, this would give the user more agency over their experience and would reduce the odds of ignorant users being pushed into cult-like rabbit-holes.

If he blames you for his grooming of you, he's not sorry. He might feel guilty (or might not), but if he's refusing to accept blame, it doesn't matter; He doesn't feel sorry and doesn't want to change his behavior.

Some people are just evil people who will have no issue with hurting others, and based on what you're describing, it sounds like he's part of that group.

I expect its mostly just because its unpleasant and taboo. People don't want to write nor watch that.

That said, they do show up occasionally in more adult-oriented movies. The Shining is an example that immediately comes to mind.

Am I missing something? The only time the article mentions cost is in trying to explain why fewer women drive EVs. They say the reason its popular is that suburbs can home-charge whereas urban areas don't have charging infrastructure for most residents.

Not that I think you're wrong, but its not what the article says.

Let me guess: Ontario, Québec, BC? The provinces with the most urban and suburban areas.

Edit: Yep, exactly as predicted for the obviois reasons. Not exactly news.

Tl;dr: EVs are good for the climate. People with shorter distances to travel and more infrastructure like EVs, those who have less infrastructure or are required to travel more have mixed feelings.