1rre

If it's a grave of someone in living memory, then sure, it's grave robbing, but even if someone knows it's their 224x great grandparent then if there's no memory either directly or even via oral history then it's definitely archaeology

There's a very blury line somewhere between the two, but it's up to whoever shouts loudest or digs quietest to define that

most distros have something, yeah, generally called [something] monitor

can't ban pages anymore with https, and while they don't want to be lumped in with the authoritarian states that ban all on Wikipedia, they are like them at heart

The point of sanctions is to make it harder to run a country, part of that is making the citizens angry with the government

They don't target Russians outside of Russia, and do target non-Russians in Russia, because they're meant to actually be somewhat effective rather than just inciting hate

Sure, but people have memory and if you block people who aren't even going to contribute to the running costs of the site via the channels they provide, never mind profit, then from the site owners perspective it's pretty great if you recognise it as a site you don't want to visit as you likely won't come back

spooky month 👻

The website doesn't really care; they have hosting costs so if you're not paying with money or by accepting ads then to them you're worse than not visiting at all as you consume resources, so it's good if you leave?

no it's not, it's a loophole in the legislation that was actually first used and is still most popular in France?

For mammals we are, sure, but there's loads of things that'd kill humans that other animals chow down on perfectly happily, especially when it comes to microorganisms, mushrooms and the rotting things they're often found in/around

I don't think scavenging is right also given that humans used to mainly pick fresh fruits and persistence hunt, both of which are very fresh food which is not overlooked or left by others... Given the fact we picked fresh fruits and hunted for fresh meat, being resistant to berry and fruit based poisons was more important than microorganism based ones, so it makes a lot of sense that so many of the non-intoxicating poisons we like are from fruits and berries

To be honest, yes they do

If the government provides a safety net for those with no money, it's reasonable for them to ban leading causes of losing money, like gambling, to save money for those who are just unfortunate

If the government provides healthcare, it's reasonable for them to ban leading causes of ill health, like smoking, to save capacity for those with less avoidable illnesses or injuries

By "burn it" I meant turn it into charcoal... Charcoal averages 80% carbon (range 50-95%), whereas depending on the type coal ranges from 60-92% carbon, with the purest type, anthracite, being 86-92% carbon

Given a mass production system would likely result in more uniform carbon content near the top of the range, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they could be swapped out pretty easily

Coal has a bunch of impurities compared to charcoal I thought?

And if the repeated melting is done by burning biomass/charcoal or with clean(er) energy then it's not a huge issue