Ha! I thought the same thing and looked up the definition and "one", unlike "three", has meanings which are not related to the number:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/moment
I guess they didn't want to spend the ten minutes it would take Alex and Andy to have an unskippable grammar nerd cutscene!
I'm actually not sure if I would've called or not to be honest. I guess I'm hindsight the wording of the task would have needed to be more precise ("say anything that can be interpreted as a number").
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
-
bei der Tat eine Waffe oder ein anderes gefährliches Werkzeug verwendet oder
-
das Opfer
a) bei der Tat körperlich schwer misshandelt oder
b) durch die Tat in die Gefahr des Todes bringt.
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.
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.
You're right and that's not what's written there. It is "killed [object/action]" i.e. the endorsement.
To me this thread sounds more like ragebait than the original title.
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.
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.