Yes, weirdly the very same website wrote about it back then (https://www.iflscience.com/fully-intact-dinosaur-embryo-found-inside-fossilized-egg-62004). I’m not sure what inspired another article now.
Is this an automated post? You told me this already earlier today and I told you that I am cross-posting but most apps do not yet recognise the function.
Is that the right link?
Archive link: https://archive.li/EYhPc
It’s mostly tabloid press covering this story, but here’s one slightly more legitimate source I found: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/08/01/zhanna-samsonova-tiktok-instagram-vegan-diet-dies/
(archive link: https://archive.li/Pz4S8)
Why does it make it dubious that the subject of a website is in its name? What if a website called “Stop Food Waste” takes about food waste?
Um, because they already have a clear agenda? They could be likely to be selective with their sources, not report on things that go against their view, etc.
I read the article and I encourage you to do the same if you did not already.
I read the article, thank you.
An article about population decline on a website literally called “Stop Population Decline” doesn’t give me the impression it’ll be fully balanced and unbiased.
This makes sense. Homes for a large numbers of additional people were needed, and these homes were available.
Is it just because of a funding crisis, or is it also because of rising prices partly due to sheer profiteering?
Kekkonen of Finland, if you stretch the definition of dictator a bit.
For sure! See “Total Eclipse of the Heart”.
Because forums fell out of favour.
Long answer: internet services became easier to use for non-technically savvy people. It’s no coincidence that as internet access broadened, sites like Facebook gained popularity because they gave people premade, customisable pages that could allow them to express themselves to others and engage in discussion.
It’s literally in the first sentence of the article. “A widely used artificial sweetener deemed a “possible” cause of cancer is safe in limited quantities, such as consuming fewer than nine to 14 cans of soft drink a day, experts have said.”
You can’t do that currently.
This has a lovely minimal interface and works really well. No ads?
Oh, definitely. I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but there’s room for a middle ground between selling your soul to Google and avoiding their services like the plague.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but you can use Google Maps without GPS and in Incognito mode, and you can watch YouTube without being logged in and/or not saving your watch history. You’re in complete control over the info you give Google. You can fully enjoy their services without the ickyness you described.
While it’s not Photoshop, Photopea is free and has such features. It runs in the browser and doesn’t require an account or lock features behind a paywall or subscription.
What are these minimal fees, and what are they for? I’m always skeptical of these online learning providers that imply they are free but don’t quite say as much.