Really, the risk of radiation is pretty damn low. There are some hot spots, and maybe you’d find a hot piece of material (probably not) but it’s mostly just wilderness that has restricted access. It’s not dangerously radioactive. Even in Pripyt it’s mostly fine. You can even get close to the destroyed reactor and be OK. Keep in mind, the last reactor at Chernobyl only stopped operating in 2000.

You shouldn’t say never, but yeah, don’t come now. Don’t make plans for it, because who knows when/if things will ever be better.

That’s literally what insurance is. They bet bad thing doesn’t happen. If it does, they pay you. If it doesn’t, they keep their money plus what you paid them.

Not similar to this event though. This is a rocket failure that couldn’t complete its mission. It wasn’t “delivered to the wrong orbit” because it wasn’t delivered. It was released into the wrong orbit because the rocket couldn’t deliver it to its destination. The satellite is no longer in orbit I think.

The point is, it wasn’t purposefully delivered there. Delivered to the wrong address imply some kind of intent, though a mistake. This is more “the driver got in an accident and the package ended up in the wrong place.” There isn’t an intent to where it was delivered. That’s just where it ended up, because the rocket had a failure. It didn’t make a mistake. It broke.

That’s not an issue with the law, it’s a feature. They don’t need to prove you fit a definition. They only need to prove that they can call you a socialist. Anyone to the left of whatever positions they don’t like are in danger of this law. It doesn’t matter if you’d call yourself a socialist, only if they would.

I mostly like the first, if you chop off that thing hanging in the front. The rest is fine.

The issue is that doing the right thing and doi g the popular thing are often two different things. Covid almost certainly would’ve been better under Democrat control. It very well could cost them politically though. You can’t really compare hypothetical deaths to actual ones, so they wouldn’t have a number to tell people they saved. A lot of people would have just complained that they’re being forced to do things they don’t like, even if it’s good.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=A48oR4Zc9ik

I suspect it’s actually the opposite. Linux users want more and better Linux support, so they want to show that it’s being used.

It happens occasionally, but it’s pretty rare. I heard a story some time back of a gunman who drove up on a birthday party or something, and a bystander shot them.

The rate is far lower than the rate of gun accidents, or even gun homicides though. It’s not an argument for lax gun laws. It just is an occasional side effect that can’t and shouldn’t be counted on.

Exact timing, including air resistance, is far more than what’s required. Sure, everything about the orbits needs to be almost exact, but the fact we can predict exactly how the craft bounces about in the atmosphere, which is turbulent, and predict the landing this accurately is insane. Landing on the moon, on the other hand, is a lot easier to predict. A high school calculus student can calculate that, and orbital information, down to the second if they have the starting conditions.

They won’t have an issue doing that still. It literally takes them doing a single thing they dislike to shun them entirely. It’s actually absurd most of the time.

This is usually used in the sense it’s just a coincidence and not purposeful. In this case, I’m 90% sure it’s intentionally making a point about real life.

I’m trying to not be hostile. I don’t know what more to say. The moderators are either AWOL or they approve of the discussion (the latter seems much more likely). I was asking if it’s allowed, because it seems to be. If you disagree, take it up with them, not me.

I meant more vaguely I hope to see it around, because the OP didn’t create this. People from this community don’t have to be the people doing it, obviously. Hell, most of the people commenting on it don’t seem to be from this community. I’m sure it is posted elsewhere, but this is the place I saw it.

I don’t really post. I should, but I don’t.

If the point of the post is to say “men should act like this, not that” then yes, the point is fixing. Sure, it might not actively be aimed to externally influence, but it is trying to point to a solution to a problem, aka a fix.

Why are women not allowed to discuss masculinity without men?

I clearly said they are. The point of the post seems to be aimed more towards a solution to a problem though, as I stated. If you want it to happen, it needs to reach men. I guess you can just not want things to change, but I don’t think most people do, and I’d wager the OP doesn’t want that.

Anway, again, the moderators of the community seem to agree that men are allowed on this post since I’m the only one who has discussed this rule. Usually they’re pretty quick on asking men not to comment (which is fine and good), but they haven’t here. I noticed this so I asked. I guess I could just not ask and assume it’s allowed.

I’m aware. The point is this is where the discussion is already happening. Making a new post doesn’t inherit the attention.

The discussion here is with both men and women, so the rule is at least not enforced for this post. Personally, I think this is the right call. Its not my community though so it isn’t my call to make. That’s why I was asking.

Sure. But if the point is to try to “fix” masculinity, which is seemingly the point of the post, that needs to involve men. You’re allowed to discuss anything you want.

I will point out, the comments seem to fit my point where it seems it’s mostly men discussing it. I also assume the rule is waived, for this reason. I have seen no removed comments or warnings about the rule. I’m literally the only person who has brought it up. If there’s no official response, the rule is de facto waived for this post.

The player isn’t the issue with shorts. It’s the content.