Unless the two sides significantly disagree about the chances of winning, they’re both better off avoiding the costs of trial and the risk of not being able to predict the result by settling. Also, they can have NDAs as part of the settlement and it doesn’t set a precedent, so even if it’s a large settlement other people will be less likely to sue than if they lost.

In addition to what others have said, they’re not a vacuum inside. They’re filled with 0.7 atm of argon gas. That would slow the transfer of heat, but there’d still be plenty of heat transfer through convection.

I improved the fix and edited the post to show it. Now it doesn’t mess with the sidebar and leaves the margin on the left for everything but images. And I added something to outline expandos. I’m tired of accidentally opening links. I really wish they weren’t opened the same way, but that’s not something i can fix with CSS.

That automatically expands the images. I don’t want them automatically expanded. I just want them to fully expand when you click on them. The default way to expand an image is click on the thumbnail, then it turns into a bigger thumbnail, then you middle click on that to open it in a new tab, then you move to the new tab. Or you click on it and have to unload the rest of the page. It would be nicer just to show it on the page and make it a single-step process.

You’re not selling your account so they can datamine reddit. You’re selling it so that they can put ads on Reddit that look like a user commenting. Which is also a thing Reddit does.

I was able to do this the first time, but I can’t figure out how to get back to the page to add styles to Stylus. I’m using Chrome. I noticed that some other extensions have extension options when you click on them, but Stylus doesn’t have that. It has Site settings and Open extension website, which look like they might be relevant but aren’t.

It’s not just a Lemmy thing. Imgur has the same problem too, and the only reason it exists is for images.

Anyway, I don’t think this fix is ideal, but I’m going to head to a CSS community to get it working properly.

Sorry. I thought the problem was that definitions are ultimately approximations to help you understand the meaning of the word. Checking it again, the moral was actually that Plato forgot to add “with broad nails”, and once he had that he had the perfect definition of a human that everyone can always use.

Changing .img-expanded { max-height: unset; } to .img-expanded:not(.banner):not(.avatar-overlay) { max-height: unset; } Fixes the banner and Lemmy icon, since they’re listed as .img-expanded for some reason. I’m hoping to figure out how to make it overlay the image on top of the sidebar, or at least only push it away while the image is opened.

How is this not a solved problem? Am I the only person who cares about seeing the image at a larger resolution?

I don’t want them expanded by default. I just want it so that when I click on the thumbnail, it fully expands. Also, apps are a phone thing, right? Fully expanded on my phone is even smaller than partially expanded on my computer.

I tried that. It still seems to be limiting the width. How can I make it so it can stretch from one side of the screen to the other?

Definitions are approximate. Defining “man” as “featherless biped” is good enough for most situations, but a plucked chicken isn’t a man and someone who lost a leg still is.

The problem is if you do this, you have to come up with a word for people who don’t eat fish, but do eat insects and crustaceans, and people who don’t eat them, but do eat jellyfish, and people who don’t eat them, but eat (or more realistically, use the corpses of) sea sponges. And then there’s people who never eat it, people who eat it but only if otherwise it would get thrown away, people who eat it but only if they’re sure the animal was raised ethically, people who will never eat meat but only eat animal products if it was raised ethically, etc. It’s really not worth having overly specific words like that, and nobody is going to remember them.

Words are approximate. You can get a general idea of what a human is by saying “featherless biped”, but you’re not going to go around saying that a plucked chicken is a human but someone who had a leg amputated isn’t. If someone generally doesn’t eat animal products, but is okay with jellyfish, saying they’re vegan will give a better understanding of them than saying they’re not vegan.

We define vegan as someone who doesn’t eat meat, in the sense that if you ask someone what it means that’s what they’ll say, but we don’t strictly use it that way. There’s just too many details to make a word for every possibility.

If reaction to physicals damage is enough to qualify as pain, a brick wall feels pain. If you damage it, it will start having holes, and eventually fall over completely.

I think at the very least you’d need some kind of learning. Pain is the stuff you learn to avoid and pleasure is the stuff you learn to do more. Without that, it’s impossible to say whether an instinctive response to stimuli is a negative or positive feeling.

Jellyfish do have neurons. Fewer than an insect. Much fewer than ChatGPT. But still something. A better example is sea sponges, which don’t have any neurons at all.

Others schools of thought are about avoiding animal products altogether, it doesn’t matter if it suffers or not - there’s no way to know. Therefore, it’s immoral to eat them if you can knowingly choose an alternative.

But why animals in particular? Is there any more reason to think a sea sponge would be sentient than a tree?

Yes. Even with humans, some people keep their eggs refrigerated for use at a time to implant them when they’re ready for a baby.

I like them being locally encrypted, but them being not (exclusively) locally stored is very important if you want to keep using those accounts after your hard drive fails.

Yes, but fewer people know that word, so it’s less useful. And if you want to have a word to describe every specific version of “meat is bad” diets, you’d need as many words as there are people who avoid meat.

By a strict definition, no. But most vegans don’t really care about scientific classification. Personally I don’t think they’re sentient and think it’s fine.