Nicht der OP, wollte nur danke sagen! Bin gar nicht auf die Idee gekommen, das Urteil selber zu lesen, warum auch immer…

Mir ging es um die Formulierung im Gesetz, dass das dem nicht folgen muss (fälschlicherweise, meiner Meinung nach). Die Relation dazu ist ja die Verwendung einer Waffe im Kontext physischer Gewalt. Das ist einfach zu wage formuliert, wenn der Text wäre “mittelbaren Einfluss auf die Gesundheit nimmt” oder ähnliches würde sich die Frage nicht stellen.

Für die, die nicht selber suchen aber sich eine Meinung bilden wollen:

(8) Auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren ist zu erkennen, wenn der Täter

1. bei der Tat eine Waffe oder ein anderes gefährliches Werkzeug verwendet oder

2. das Opfer

   a) bei der Tat körperlich schwer misshandelt oder

   b) durch die Tat in die Gefahr des Todes bringt.

Quelle https://www.buzer.de/177_StGB.htm

Wieso? Machen es doch richtig: Das ist der Gesetzestext, hier die Bedeutung, dieses Thema gehört nicht in diese Schublade.

Hier muss der Gesetzgeber nachbessern, nicht das Gericht.

Bitte nicht aus Versehen die Gewaltenteilung untergraben, nur will ein (naja eher zwei) Arme ihren Job nicht in unserem Sinne machen…

The"single cell pet" gets me even more… Like isn’t that a tad specific? Dogs? No prob! Rabbits? Be my guest. Amoeba? Fuck off, weirdo!

Not Op here, from what I’ve read is that the answer to that question is unknown but he showed a significant tolerance for some. Does that make it himself fine? In my book: yes.

For me personally it was enoughto leave the project behind as it’s so closely tied to the person.

That’s a call everyone needs to do for themselves though if course

Im not familiar with British law, anyone care to explain why this is capped at 90%? Kinda unintuitive to me.

Oh. That would explain the hashtags. I’ll edit my comment to point out yours!

Thanks!

Hypothesis: the message seems to imply that the cliche nature lover needs to trample and destroy said nature to be close to it.

This seems the most likely explanation to me.

And I find it neither funny nor insightful.

Edit: I can’t manage to copy paste usernames on mobile but please check out the refinement by the comment to this post. Highly valuable edition. Tldr of it: not “nature lovers” in general but social media invasive nature lovers.

Lemmy.world is blocked by beehaw as well…

How about “what I want is beyond my comprehension”?

That’s quite often my default…

For me it’s very simple: NSFW can’t have a general acceptable definition because it depends on culture, background and personal beliefs. There is no way for a collection of communities to have a common definition and even if they would have: enforcement and interpretation is still done by volunteers.

Therefore All is never safe for work unless I know that my tolerance is lower than all communities within lemmy AND I’m fine with an accidental penis or breast due to human error.

I don’t hate that much but I don’t watch him because of the shady selling business hr often does and apparent sponsored content which is not always disclosed (been a while but his channel misrepresented graphics cards benchmarks for example).

It’s like the British yellow press for me: his face alone is enough to discredit the quality of the source. Could it be good? Sure! Will I ever find out? Not anymore.

Wow thanks a lot for that!

At least in Germany it’s the same. It gets ignored in the discussions concerning nuclear exit but it’s actually the main reason why I’m not aggressively against it: we have save areas for nuclear storage but those fight bitterly to not have it. The areas which are currently used are… Not good. Paying someone else (such as Finland) is out of budget for both state and energy companies. The latter anyway want to do the running but not the maintenance and the building, state should pay for that.

It’s really white sad for me. The (true) statement that the dangerous waste needs to be stored carefully got corrupted to “it can’t be stored”.

On the one hand … “Never make fun of someone if they mispronounce a word. It means they learned it by reading.”

On the other hand… what else are friends there for?

Because a Ponzi scheme revolves around paying past people with fresh money without using it as promised at all.

Insurances (when fraudulent) collect money but don’t pay out anyone unless forced by lawsuits. Ponzi schemes are s vers specific financial tactic.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Ich würde eher sagen, dass das bürokratisch Deutsch ist für “wtf wollt ihr von uns? Die Deppen im Parlament machen uns andere Vorgaben, an die müssen wir uns halten”.

So lese ich zumindest den letzten Satz.

Nehme ich immer noch als Ausrede wahr im Sinne von “ich muss doch da nicht drüber nachdenken, sollen die mir andere Vorgaben machen!”.

Der Unterschied für mich: der systemische Rassismus ist aus Bequemlichkeit, das Namensrecht nicht an zu fassen. Finde ich noch… trauriger.

Haha brainfart. Thought about lan domains…

Who should do this vetting though? The internet was built up with the idea of technical neutrality - everything else came on top. TLDs came later and were used to either describe the origin of a page or its intended(!) use. That leads to the case that not only can a propaganda outlet mark itself as “info” - it’s actually historically correct to do so as it’s about what the host wants to communicate.

ICANN, the organisation behind the TLDs, actually always struggles with this btw. A more recent example was the decision which domain should be reserved for local name services. It took y long time (I think years overall) to get to: .internal (edited, brainfart)

Would you mind telling the source of this? Looks intuitively right but… So do so many things :/