I wish that were true. I know too many people IRL that believe that and are old enough that they should know better.

Kagi’s pretty good and has a Fediverse search feature, but it’s paid. I don’t mind paying, but there’s also no way to do private searches that way, so I’m not going to use it as my main search engine. It’s been good at hunting down memes on Lemmy that I want to find again though.

The trick is that they haven’t read it either, tankies just copy/paste stuff with titles that sound nice

I mostly care about how much caffeine I get, which I understand to be the same regardless of how much ice there is. Generally, small or medium is 2 shots of espresso, and a large is 3 shots.

Really really. Great fun when you’re young and dumb and just got a car

And just replying here to verify that it’s me 👋

Are the comics separate canonically? Is this where Moominhouse comes from in the comics?

That is a fun fact! Looks like sheath in English is a cognate with the same etymology

It’s a demonstration of the ability that companies have for tracking you across the internet. Try clearing your cookies / using private browsing / etc, and you’ll probably see the “FP ID” at the top be unchanged, because it can tell that it’s still you.

Which thread is that?

It got confused when I tried Tor Browser, which is good. First time I ever visited, but it thought that I was the same person as ~700 other people:

Correct!

“farleft” is a fine crossword answer. Equating “far left” with “extremely liberal” is pretty silly IMO though. A much better hint would’ve been “Political faction advocating for radical social change” or something like that

The clue is “Involuntarily made noise while laughing, perhaps”, so sure

The MBFC bot would be useful here. Here’s what they say about the group behind this site:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/environmental-working-group-ewg/

Overall, we rate the Environmental Working Group Left Biased as a strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of ideas and claims that oppose scientific consensus

Some discussion over here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42624062

Notably, someone links to this critique:

https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/01/controversial-fluoride-analysis-published-after-years-of-failed-reviews/

The study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, is a meta-analysis, a type of study that combines data from many different studies—in this case, mostly low-quality studies—to come up with new results. None of the data included in the analysis is from the US, and the fluoride levels examined are at least double the level recommended for municipal water in the US. In some places in the world, fluoride is naturally present in water, such as parts of China, and can reach concentrations several-fold higher than fluoridated water in the US.

The authors of the analysis are researchers at the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. For context, this is the same federal research program that published a dubious analysis in 2016 suggesting that cell phones cause cancer in rats. The study underwent a suspicious peer-review process and contained questionable methods and statistics.

Thanks, I hate it. Wanted to reflexively downvote 👌

One can hope 🤞