I’ve done some (grunt-level) work in chemical packaging. I didn’t see in the article if it specifies, but the place I worked handled tons of different types of chemicals and they’d all have their own precautions needed. If this place was the same (big if), the sprinklers are probably standard for fire, and the chemical in question should be delivered sealed in watertight drums and only opened/handled inside a small room-sized fume hood. We had specialized rooms for things like spontaneously combustible chemicals and poisonous inhalation hazards — those chemicals were never unsealed outside those rooms.

All that goes out the window I assume if this is the only chemical they handle.

Has anything reputable reported on this? Everything I’ve read has said motive is under investigation, but it’d seem a bit clearer if this is actually true and not just facebook being facebook.

I have. It didn’t seem ridiculously priced and the results have included what I want the majority of the time. No complaints so far, and it’s been about six months.

I completely forgot the 12-inch one existed.

Okay, the old ones that apparently have both do have the Thunderbolt symbol on the ones that are, though, so what’s the problem?

Why would you need them on a MacBook? They’re always* Thunderbolt.

Edit: Better explained by GamingChairModel below. I entirely forgot one series of MacBook, and also forgot when the older ones did have the Thunderbolt symbol on them.

And maybe I’m using it wrong, but it just…doesn’t work. I use spotlight search on my MacBook to find programs and things and it just finds them. It’s fast enough to be faster than me opening things off the dock.

I try to use the search on my wife’s Win11 computer and half the time it sends me to a website for a program she already has installed.

Like if you want to imitate, even badly, the imitation should at least be functional.

Fair amount of biblical references in it; I’d guess the poster is drawing a parallel between that and the rather unhinged nature of Christian fundamentalism. I haven’t seen anything yet to indicate motives, so we’ll all see I guess.

Do you care about internet points on Lemmy of all places?

Not particularly. I agree with you on that; I assume not many people care about them, but when someone gives me a button to push for things that don’t add to conversations, like, say, repeated instances of aggressive ignorance and lies about what an article consists of, it’s really not a lot of effort to push it, so I’m going to keep doing that 'til either you stop with the bullshit or I get bored.

A contradiction. I repeat: I either verify stuff myself or outsource that verification to a source I can trust. I’m surprised you don’t do that too, or put it in the bad light for whatever reason. Maybe that’s why you have a long conversation defending questionable sources. I decided not to trust them. It’s more of an effort than blindly consuming whatever someone posts.

A lie. There is no evidence that the source is questionable. There is abundant evidence that they are a real journalistic source (remember when I linked you some? Those were good times).

You decided not to trust the source based on nothing. This is a stupid thing to do. You decided to comment on it anyway, with no knowledge or interest in discovering the truth. That is a harmful thing to do.

I’m going to keep having this conversation because you’ve decided to…what are we at now, quintuple-down on this? We’re far past the realm of where most Lemmy apps will even display comment chains this long. It’s just you, me, and anyone bored enough to dig into a slap fight about how difficult it is for you to read.

I mean first let me thank you for speaking on behalf of all of Lemmy. Super kind of you.

The rest of this is a lovely set of excuses, but this…

In a polarising context of the Israeli-Palestinian war we already had a lot of fake or complicated stories and as I’m not myself able to verify each piece myself, I prefer big news media I can somehow trust because they do verification for me.

I really can’t resist the bait there.

No one is asking you to verify every piece of information you read. In this polarizing context of the world we live in, you should at least try to make an effort to know what you’re talking about before you comment, though, or you’re adding to that misinformation you seem so keen to avoid.

I’m sorry, you can’t even read what you wrote?

At the very least, basic level, I don’t see any mention of them being in that region and IDK how they report without that.

Source is linked in the article within the first few sentences from people who are yes, actually in that region. You also indicated you trust “big” sources, who…also aggregate content from sources like this one that are actually in the region.

You skipped doing a simple internet search on any of that, which would have told you this, so I don’t have to.

They refer to even less known sources, them quoting anonymous individuals

It requires a very determined level of aggressive ignorance to both blow right past why anonymity might be quite necessary here, and to at the same time completely ignore that not all of the sources are anonymous.

I understand that this will not make you happy, and it probably won’t convince you, either. Neither of those factors makes these types of things less stupid to say.

You said stupid shit and then doubled-down on it when the answers were easily available. I don’t know why being called out on it is so surprising to you ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Sure, I can do that for you too. Is clicking the link easy enough?

Of course the interviewees are mostly anonymous. Does the context of the situation just entirely blow past you? You think it’d be super easy to do this and face no repercussions?

Also, did you just not read the quotes from the one non-anonymous source, or was that too far down in the article and your scrolling finger got tired? I’d rather assume you’re lazy than that you’re pushing an agenda, but hey it seems like we can all just make assumptions and do no digging to see if they’re true, so fuck it, you’re a war criminal that kicks puppies.

How dare you bring your puppy-kicking into this conversation. I demand a peer-reviewed paper proving you’re not a puppy-kicker and the authors must be owned by one of three major corporations or I won’t believe it. What’s that? You don’t even have a referenced Wikipedia page with sources that demonstrate you don’t kick puppies? Well fuck man, even that paper can’t help you now.

If you’d read the article, you’d see where they source the information from. This org often republishes and aggregates content from other sources that further its progressive aims.

All of this is readily available information at the end of a five second search. Just because you don’t read media that isn’t part of a for-profit corporation doesn’t mean they’re less reputable.

So because you’re unfamiliar with this organization (that has existed for almost 30 years), you called them “questionable” instead and merely implied that the report was fraudulent and that we should all do better than to post articles from sources you haven’t heard of and can’t be arsed to look into.

Then, when someone gave you evidence, you dismissed it because it didn’t agree with how you see the world. Don’t get me wrong, I think the bias fact check site is bullshit about half the time, but you still made an accusation, if obliquely, and provided no evidence.

What’s that thing we can do when people make assertions without evidence again? Oh right, dismiss those assertions without evidence.

So the fact that the poster talked about the current candidate and the current election just flew right past you, just like the rest of the point, then? I’m not surprised.

As multiple people have already explained to you, in this instance, the Democratic candidate is the only realistic way forward. You are, stupidly, expanding that to all choices forever because, again, you can’t seem to pick up on context.

You know when a walk sign on a traffic light says “walk,” and then it changes to “don’t walk”? You don’t wander into traffic because it said walk ten seconds ago, right? The poster is trying to tell you not to walk into traffic. The next election cycle, they might say something else, because the situation may have changed. Stop reading things that aren’t there.

No one is ignoring anything. Well, except you, since you seem to need every bit of context spelled out for you before you can derive intended meaning from four sentences. Like fuck man, I don’t know how you get through the day with that level of incompetence.

They did.

He was not acquitted.

The charges were dropped once the massive pile of police incompetence met the shitstorm of public scrutiny.

First the charges were dismissed without prejudice so the prosecutor could dig and see if he could find some way to make it Walker’s fault that cops killed his girlfriend. Then, when he couldn’t (because of the aforementioned appalling incompetence), and public scrutiny didn’t decrease to a point where he could quietly pressure Walker into a cell anyway, they were dismissed with prejudice.

It is important to not make shit up about this. If the public scrutiny hadn’t been as intense, it is entirely possible that they would have dragged him to trial and pressured him into a plea bargain. He was lucky that the public managed to continue giving a shit for more than their usual 30-second attention span.