Just get a rice cooker. It's worth it.

I wonder how many people on lemmy knows that singer is a sewing machine brand.

I would assume that they are saying in a bigger scope and just happen to divide down to a ratio of 1 to 32.

Like rendering in 480p (307k pixels) and then generating 4k (8.3M pixels). Which results in like 1:27, sorta close enough to what he's saying. The AI upscale like dlss and fsr are doing just that at less extreme upscale.

Japan's birth rate isn't even that low anymore comparatively to other nations.

Take a look at South Korea. It's nearly half of Japan. Japan is like 1.3 (OP's article) and SK is at 0.7 (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-koreas-fertility-rate-dropped-fresh-record-low-2023-2024-02-28/). SK is the absolute dead last in the world. Even China is lower than Japan now at 1.2 even after getting rid of the 1 child policy.

Think the west is any different? Canada also hovers at round 1.3. (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-birth-rate-has-dropped-off-a-cliff-and-its-because-nobody-can-afford-housing - just sourcing 1.3, I don't actually agree with their reasoning) Canada's population only increases because of massive immigration they accept. And immigrants from poorer countries are more likely to have children than existing. So, might even rival SK if we were to not count 1st/2nd gen immigrants, though we don't have such exact data collection, only corollary.

Just pay for a good offline sudoku app. It probably costs less than a cup of coffee. Then we'll all be happier.

Not sure who these foolishly brave Americans are who think they can beat an elephant and a grizzly bear bare handed.

Article doesn't say no attorney would take the case. It says they talked to a lawyer. And they're in limbo. Meaning they're still deciding how to pursue this matter.

“We’re still in this process of figuring out what to do,” she said. “We keep pressing in different directions to see if something is going to happen.”

So they're looking for the best approach. Not that there is a lack of approach.

An attorney would happily take a losing case. They get paid either way. Their job is to get the best outcome possible, not to win a lawsuit--though that may end up being the best outcome.

I don't really care what the contents are. If someone's using excessive emojis or doing this stupid clapping shit, that's a down vote for me.

It is actually a deliberate corp strategy. Plastic straws were never a real concern, save for that ONE turtle. Plastic straw make such a negligible amount of plastic waste that stop using it will have virtually zero measurable impact in amount of plastic waste we create. All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.

That's not to say all plastic reduction initiatives are pointless. But the straws definitely belong in the least environmentally impactful category.

Sure, I'll play this game.

The premise of the convincing is loaded. No one deserves shit. Steven Crowder made the format famous and therefore he is attributed to it.

Whether or not the person is a piece of shit is irrelevant and ad hominem. If Hitler said 1 + 1 = 2, Hitler is right. You don't get to deny that just because you hate the person. Shitty people can make correct statements and they can achieve things. Doesn't matter which name we apply to it. We must be able to argue on the merits of the statement or format without sorting to personal feelings on the person, lest you become the one who is intolerant.

Not sure what the meme is referring to, but this is actually true in some aspects.

If there are 100 people in a room and 1 person is just super loudly talking the entire time, it silences out 99 people. The ability to talk of the 99 is silenced by the 1. If you limit the amount the loudest can talk, you give the other 99 more freedom of speech. From a utilitarian view, you gained more freedom of speech as a whole by reducing the freedom of speech for one.

People who say things like these generally conflate the concepts of "I want to remove others' right to freedom of speech" with "my freedom of speech was taken away" when they often want to do the former.

This isn't whataboutism. Whataboutism isn't about using the words "what about", it's about misdirecting the conversation to a seemingly related but actually an unrelated topic in order to counter argue the point. It's a sub-type of ad-hominem attack, a fallacy.

The person you're responding to is directly answering why people need to eat fish (I'm not validating the claim, just explaining) with sarcastic questions starting with what about.