To be fair, that’s because the fossil fuel lobby does everything to prevent alternatives.

Spoiler formatting looks like this:

::: spoiler Tap for spoiler
Spoilers go here
:::

The “Tap for spoiler” part is what shows up in the post, like this:

You can put whatever you like instead of “Tap for spoiler”, such as emojis:

That’s all :)

Who said anything about the idea?

Growth and Improvements

Lies. It clearly says improvwents. Where are my improvwents?

Could’ve been a very nice shitty shop, 5 minutes max, but no, you had to make slop instead.

So you’re telling me there’s a downward trend.

Goodness gracious do you look even ONCE at what you post?

And that’s exactly what the blogpost is trying to solve.

That kills the less active ones and achieves the opposite of what Lemmy wants to do.

Don’t kink shame, it hurts nobody.

Edit: the kink is what hurts nobody, naturally, is what I mean. I am severely sleep-deprived. Forcing people who work for you to cater to your kink is of course scum behaviour.

I fucking hate that apparently it’s necessary to add a countdown to keep people’s attention for more than two seconds and I have ADHD.

Deep thoughts with the Deep.

Uh. Maybe? I don’t know what you’re referring to.

From English “football”. It’s the sounds of the word spelt out according to the phonetic rules of some languages.

Someone has a lot of time on their hands.

You were asking what word they should have used instead of “chemicals” and I told you the one option that might be appropriate if not for the specific circumstances. What else do you want?

“Chemicals that have been shown to be harmful enough to warrant caution”. I don’t know what else to tell you.

The thing is, this specific chemical that we’re talking about hadn’t been shown to be harmful until now (and as you can see by the discussion elsewhere the jury is still out on if it has indeed been shown) so they couldn’t have used that phrase either to argue that it should have been obvious why ingesting it is a bad idea.

This isn’t pedantic, it’s the answer, unless you can specifically tell me what “such things” are.

You’re asking a question in a public forum, I don’t see how me answering is offensive.

such things

What things? There is no sub-group of chemicals whose sheer presence automatically makes a food harmful. The replacement is a different argument.

My probability of coming into contact with measles is higher than my probability of being an MD? I’d sure say so.