🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@mapto

yea its something im happy to address if possible

@ChrisWilms23 @helenczerski @davidho @gabipurcaru

@nixCraft I use my SSH key as my actual key not a 2fa.. no need to add a password..

One main reason i love this is i dont have to setup my key everywhere... my ssh key is determined by the card int he slow

@mapto

Well for starters we already have full text search, weve had it for years.. My guess is you mean they are doing something new in that regard youd want us to integrate?

Merging back from 4 itself doesnt make sense.. but i can of course pull in any features we may be lacking on a case by case basis.

@ChrisWilms23 @helenczerski @davidho @gabipurcaru

@bmacDonald94 My grandfather was obsessed with this man!

What are some of your top personality/mental weaknesses?

I'll go first.

1. Impatience
2. Letting go of that which is not meant for me
3. Assuming people know and understand more than they do (including about me and my intentions).

That time I was stuck in a #Buffalo Stampede at #Yellowstone and got some amazing photos!

@SAUNDERS

Very true.

@thor

@thor Certainly can be problematic.. but I think it may be fairly innocent too... hard to say without being there.

@thor Im kinda on the fence between this being offensive and also perfectly nomal.

I mean on the one hand its perfectly normal for race and nationality to be seperate identities. A racially non-norwegian is in one sense (nationality) a norwegian, in another sense (race) not a norwegian... no issue there.

What worries me is it sounds like you are implying they equate race with nationality... they assume a non-racially-norwegian must also originally from another nation... that is troublesome if that is the case.

That said at the same time asking "where are you from" to mean "where is your ancestry from" would be perfectly ok.. i know int he USA if someone says that they usually are asking ancestry and not using it to imply they were imported... but even then not always.

@mjambon I mean, its worked brilliantly for them so far. Year after year they take more land for themselves and no one is stopping them...

@realcaseyrollins @mzan

> Well, I don’t see how bombing by land would result in more Palestinian casualties than bombing by air.

In and of itself it wouldnt. The difference is in the mentality. With IDF on the ground they would have more reason to completely flatten an area, to make sure no one is left to resist the troops ont he ground.

With a remote attack they cant retaliate because no one is there to retaliate against and they dont have the tech to send a bomb back with any accuracy.

Basically they can decide how much damage it does either way, the fear is with troops on the ground they will be motivated to kill more people for their own safety. My proposal is they taket he risk to solve the problem, even if that means more IDF killed in the short term it means fewer killed in the long term.. this implies that they resist the urge to blanket bomb though and I doubt they will.

@tatzelbrumm You can never go wrong with a princess bride quote :)

@futurebird

My guess is that if you have the right pheromone they would probably respond like you are an ant. Otherwise they will probably be agitated.

@floatybirb @GertyBz

@mzan

Its not like Israel makes an effort to avoid killing civilians either... they have often bombed such areas from afar when the risk to them was less immediate.

@realcaseyrollins

@tatzelbrumm I can not read hebrew, I dont know what it says.

@realcaseyrollins @mzan

And while it might put IDF at a bit more risk short term, overall it would save lives as it results in an actual resolution. bombing from afar and killing civilians indiscriminately, aside from being a war crime, only servers to enrage the people and empower hamas.. so int he end the death toll for the israelis will be higher.