Yes, there are red flags there IMHO.

You know, I've seen similar behaviours so many times from people that they tell you how many problems they have and they kind of put the burden on you to deal with their problems. I don't mean you cannot be supportive of them if they really have problems they are trying to fix, but you shouldn't be dealing with someone else's problems if they don't want to do anything about them themselves.

I usually listen to them, tell them that I understand they are going through hard times and that I understand how tough that is being for them and all that supportive stuff... and then I tell them to go to therapy.

We cannot be someone else's therapists. Unless, you know, we are actual therapists. And even in that case, they would have to go through one of our formal therapies. I don't think even therapists get into relationships with someone just to fix them.

Some people will take the advice and consider getting help while others will not even consider it because they just want to take you hostage of their emotions. It's not worth putting any much more effort into someone who is apparently crying for help but doesn't really want to make any change and just wants to manipulate you instead.

And punching other people? Yeah, I don't care how "honourable" his reasons were, that's also a red flag.

Forty years as a Spaniard and I just learnt now tourists come here to buy espadrilles, which is even a word I just learnt from this map.

Yeah, I also checked the date first and I think that makes it worse because that's a statement he made when he was still the Prime Minister.

It works for me, so the issue must be on your side (or they fixed the link)

No, they didn't. Their answer was wrong.

Oh, that's helpful and sheds some light, thanks.
Still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, though! But it is what it is.

OK, so all the explanations I saw were vague because the law itself was vague. That looks quite like a loophole to have passed!

It seems you are confusing strictly necessary cookies with legitimate interest cookies, which are different things: https://kbin.social/m/explainlikeimfive@lemmy.world/t/466192/-/comment/2427882

It would help to clarify in the post that you’re interested in the legal aspects for the EU under the GDPR.

I had added the #GDPR tag to the question and, as far as I know, GDPR is the only regulation that requires a cookie consent banner and mentions legitimate interest cookies, but I may be wrong on that as I don't know all the regulations around the world 😃 (and California tends to follow EU's stances on these matters, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were baking something similar to the GDPR if they don't have it yet).

But yeah, you are right, people from many different places around the world could be reading the question, so I must have been clear that this is specific to some local regulation. I edited the post.

That doesn't answer the question, does it?

That's a functional (or "strictly necessary") cookie and those are the ones you cannot reject.
Legitimate-interest cookies are a different thing and you can indeed reject them, but they are on by default.

I know what a cookie is.
I was asking what are legitimate-interest cookies and what makes them different so they don't need explicit consent under GDPR.

Another Spaniard here, for the record.

I wouldn't say it's like Palestine, there are relevant differences between both cases. The basis of the Palestinian conflict and the reason why two states were created were mostly religious and ethnic. I don't think any of that plays a significant role in the Saharan case and it's all down to Moroccan expansionism and access to oil reserves in the Saharan sea.
In the Palestinian case, it was a former British colony that was being decolonized and tensions between two communities living in that territory led to the current situation. I'm not going into the details because it would be too long, you can just go to Wikipedia.
In the Saharan case, it was a Spanish former colony which, in the process of being decolonized, was invaded by a neighbouring country for political and economic reasons.

You are basically saying Western Sahara ended up in this situation because Spain abandoned it unattending the UN's mandate to decolonize it.
Spain was indeed attending the UN's mandate to decolonize it as it did with Equatorial Guinea a few years before, which is an independent country nowadays. But both Mauritania and Morocco had aspirations on Western Sahara and wouldn't accept an independent Sahara, so taking advantage of one moment of political weakness in Spain with the dictator retired to die, Morocco invaded Western Sahara and mainland Spain was more concerned about their internal issues and was not in the position to defend the Sahara against Moroccan invasion.

Mauritania eventually gave up on their aspirations on Sahara and that's how we ended up in the current situation with a Morocco-occupied Sahara with a self-proclaimed government that fights back against the occupation with very little support (other than Algeria) because Morocco has much stronger diplomatic ties.

The current situation, de jure, is that Western Sahara is a Spanish former colony in the process of being decolonized.
But de facto, it's a territory governed by Morocco and disputed with the Polisario Front, which was already fighting against Spanish occupation before Moroccan one and has declared an independent Republic which has very little recognition.
De jure, Spain would be continuing the decolonization process, but that's not realistic when the territory has been occupied by Morocco for half a century.

It's true, however, that this is not an issue that raises a lot of interest currently in Spain for anything else than playing internal politics.
Also, Morocco and Spain have a lot of common interests so Spain is very careful to not upset Morocco with this topic. On the other hand, Algeria is the biggest supporter of the Polisarian cause and another Spanish strategic ally and probably the reason why Spain hasn't fully abandoned yet the Saharan cause. So Spain usually tries to play a low profile on this trying to balance their position between not upsetting Morocco and not upsetting Algeria.

For more details, Wikipedia is still your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_March

And the former Spanish king being a CIA agent? Yeah, I don't think it's even worth to add any comment to that.

And, of course, when I say "Spain", "Morocco", "Algeria", etc., I am referring to the regime that ruled the country at that moment.
I'm not trying to imply that every Moroccan or Algerian is responsible for what their rulers do the same way that a lot of Spaniards were not Franco supporters by that time.

LGBTQ+ and labour laws are very different across countries, so it's very difficult to talk generally about how this works without being specific to some country.

I will talk about Spain because there's where I am from and where I worked most of the time.
You generally just cannot fire someone for arbitrary reasons before their contract comes to an end. You really have to justify why you need to fire that person, like having several poor performance reviews against them. Otherwise, you may risk having your firing judged as "unjustified" and having to pay that person a big compensation or even the firing being judged as void and having to readmit them to the position you fired them from.
No matter whether they are cis, gay, straight, man, woman, POC or whatever, you just cannot fire someone without a valid reason unless their contract has come to an end and you don't renew it, that's basically it.

So could someone argue that your sexual orientation or gender identity is a valid reason to fire you because being gay doesn't fit within their company culture or having trans people may cause them an image problem?

No, article 4.2.c of the Worker's Statute says you cannot be discrimanted for employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, among other criteria like ethnicity, age, union membership, etc.
So you couldn't be fired for being either gay or straight, man or woman, cis or trans, etc. Nothing of that is a valid reason to be fired.

I created my account in Status.net (now GNU Social) around 2009 and later it was switched to pump.io: https://identi.ca/chuso
And Diaspora* in 2010: https://joindiaspora.com/people/4d0aa88b2c174330380001db
Like others, with not a lot success with those early projects until I joined Mastodon in 2017: @chuso

Github Copilot.

I had the opposite argument with one Indian guy when I was living in the UK.
He was saying what people speak in countries like Mexico, Argentina, etc. cannot be called Spanish because they are not from Spain and instead they speak Mexican, Argentinian...
I told him what they speak in those countries is still Spanish the same way that what they speak in the US is English even when they are not in England. He replied that what they speak in America is not English either but American instead.
Then I realized how stubborn he was in his wrongness and just gave up.

I like to see it that way, as an easy way to refer to everyone who doesn't fit within the cishet norm.
As others have mentioned, this used to be a derogatory term, so some people may still feel uncomfortable with it, but it has been reclaimed since then and I think nowadays we have long past the point where most people still see it as a derogatory word.
Also, it seems it annoys Graham Linehan, which is always a bonus: https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1681657946529202182

I have no idea how it works under the hood, but I guess there is some caching given how fast results are retrieved.

This appears to be related to kiwi farms?

It was originally developed by Kiwi Farms when they were running their own Mastodon instance.
They built this tool because they were being massively defederated (for obvious reasons) but eventually gave up and closed their Mastodon instance.
Since then, other instances apparently not related to Kiwi Farms (but usually still that kind of "free speech" ones) have reinstantiated the service.

It also has a slur immediately on the page you linked

Oh, yes, I haven't seen that.

fedi-block-api already existed and works with any fediverse instance, not only Lemmy.

Some people are questioning why there are gender-specific categories in chess.

That's a good question and my understanding is that there is only a female category and then the general one where both men and women can participate. The female one seems to have been created to encourage the participation of women due to the general one being monopolized by men.

You may agree or not with that reasoning and I am not trying to take any stance on it, just trying to answer the questions on why they created a gender-specific category in the first place.

I am not really into chess competitions and my understanding of this point is based on explanations I saw from others elsewhere, so I may be wrong.

Same energy

If you look at the data, the main reason why people detransition is not because "transition wasn’t right" for them.

Turban et al. found in 2021 that among the people who have detransitioned, the vast majority of them (82.5 %) cited external factors for detransitioning such as pressure from parents (35.6 %), other family members (25.9 %), partners (20.2 %) or friends (14.2 %), societal stigma (32.5 %), difficulty to get a job as a trans person (26.9 %) or pressure from employers (17.5 %) as opposed to 15.9 % citing internal factors with only 1 % citing not being able to identify with the gender they had transitioned to, 2.4 % having doubts about their gender and 10.5 % citing having fluctuations about their gender.

And I would even say that only that 1 % could fit in that definition of people who detransitioned because "transition wasn't right for them", as having doubts or fluctuations about their gender can mean something else (like transitioning to something else like non-binary or gender-fluid).

So the vast majority of people who have detransitioned did it because of how hard it was made by transphobes to live their lives as trans people, not because the transition wasn't right for them.
It's kind of a self-fulfilled prophecy where transphobes make trans people's lives so hard that some of them are not able to bear with it anymore so they have to detransition and then transphobes say "see, they had to detransition because they regret having transitioned, hence transitioning is wrong".

It's the same kind of self-fulfilled prophecy as those LGBT+-phobic people who say they wouldn't want to have LGBT+ kids because they would be less happy, but the only ones trying to make LGBT+ people's lives miserable are those phobes themselves.

One year ago I brought my PinePhone with replaceable battery into the sea and it's still working!

I have seen some data on that matter for the trans case because it's something I investigated recently to rebut the transphobic propaganda in Spanish right-wing media when a pro-trans law was recently approved. But you can also find similar studies for other members of the LGBTQIA+ group in Google Scholar.
There are four times more mental health issues like depression and suicidal ideation among trans people (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.012) and twice more suicidal attempts (https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-1183) because of what they have to go through than cis people.

I guess this is the declaration they are referring to?
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/65920/st12000-en23.pdf

The only reference I find to Malvinas in that declaration is point 13:

1. Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of CELAC’s historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.

Which actually uses both names "Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands" and doesn't really take any stance on it other than "taking note" of the CELAC's position on the conflict.

So it seems The Guardian's only bother with it is about the EU acknowledging the existence of the issue and using the Spanish name of the islands together with the English one?

Yes, that's what I was going to say also.
I am Spanish and they were always called Malvinas for us.
This was a summit with Latin America and the Caribbean countries and I assume it is the same for them. The Falklands name sounds totally made up to us.

You can even see the Wikipedia articles in most Latin languages call them Malvinas:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islas_Malvinas_(territorio_brit%C3%A1nico_de_ultramar)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Eles_Malouines
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilhas_Malvinas
https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illas_Malvinas
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illes_Malvines
https://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illas_Malvinas
Italian and Romanian Wikipedias seem to be the exception:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isole_Falkland
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulele_Falkland

It's interesting that you say that while using a French word like "cliché". Maybe it was intentional from you? :-D
And maybe reducing not having a strong French influence to not having a wine/bread/cheese culture is, you know, reductionist?

Meta has practically unlimited resources. They will make access to the fediverse fast with their top tier servers.

Well, that hasn't been my experience so far, and they are not even federating yet :-D

It seems that before Instagram's Threads was launched, threads.net was just a domain name parked for sale with GoDaddy's domain auction service Afternic: https://web.archive.org/web/20221115220239/http://threads.net/

So I guess Meta just paid whatever they were asking to be paid?

That reminds me this movie which tells the story of Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3169706/

I think the same every time there is criticism of "pinkwashing" and "rainbow capitalism".
Yeah, some may be doing it just for profit and as a PR stunt, but it still matters.
I remember pride parades in London and Brighton were full of corporate floats like those from Deliveroo, Starbucks and National Rail.
Did they do it just for promotion? OK, maybe. But it still sends the message. A message that says that when you go into a National Rail train or a Starbucks café you can feel safe. And a message that other companies can also join and show that support without fearing that may damage their business with them.
Unfortunately, those messages are still needed today, so I don't really care very much if they do it for marketing as long as it still works for the cause.
If you are going to a bar and see they have tuned their logo to show the pride colors during June, they may be doing it for marketing, but at least you will know you can come in and feel safe there.
I even saw a float from the Premier League in Brighton and we know how much work is still needed there.

That's what I initially read too and I was like "omg, what happened" 😆

Sounds like your teacher followed the calvinist branch of Christianity then?

Predestination (in terms of religious salvation but also in general, like in determinism) is something that I always found fascinating. Because, if you are predestined to something (either to salvation or two just wake up today), why do we even try so hard if the outcome is already preset? Why try to be a good person if you are already destined to go to heaven or hell since you've been born? Or why do you set the alarm to wake up early in the morning and go to work if you have no influence on what will happen? Couldn't you just sleep the whole day and the result would be the same because it's already preset?
I guess you wouldn't really have that choice. If a full determinism is true, there is no room for free will and even trying to affect the result is something you are already predestined to do and any choice you think you make (or even vacillating over the choices you make) is still something you were predestined to do and only an illusion of free will.

Not an expert on the matter (even when I was raised Catholic), but I don't think you can give a single view that covers all branches of Christianity on things like guilt, repentance and whether you are defined by who you are or what you do as I think there are relevant differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism on those matters. So maybe worth determining first what branch of Christianity we are talking about :-D

Plums and kiwis

I didn't say hidden algorithm. I was assuming we were talking about open-source software and hence public algorithm.
It's just your karma points that would just be kept in the database without putting that number in your profile.
That changes nothing in terms of how the algorithm works. I didn't suggest changing anything on how many details are available on how the algorithm works.

Well, I was assuming we were talking about open-source software. So you wouldn't need karma experts to "guess what makes the internal algorithm tick". If it's open source, the algorithm is still public. You just wouldn't know how much karma each user has.

What about hidden karma?
Like there is still karma used internally to decide what posts to promote and how to weight votes, but the numbers are kept only internally so people don't get obsessed with that number next to their (and others') profile?