This page references several works by French missionaries: https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/lac-bac/explorers/www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/explorers/h24-1430-e.html

I could easily find the first mentioned book “Le Grand Voyage du pays des Hurons”. A scan of what I think is the original book: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k109515f/f2.item There also exists an English translation, but I couldn’t find a free version of that one.

A non exhaustive list of what makes them awful: https://expertbeacon.com/why-is-paypal-so-bad/

Afaik, the issue that was making the most victims, was that they were facilitating scammers that targeted sellers:
5. Good Luck Recouping Losses as a Seller in Disputes.
89% of sellers experienced dispute resolution problems with PayPal in 2021 surveys. Despite providing evidence the item shipped or service rendered, they lost cases and sums averaging $622.
This is driven by PayPal‘s buyer-favored review round taking 1-2 weeks. This favors scamming buyers at the expense of legitimate businesses.

Iirc, there was a time when Paypal always sided with the buyer, irregardless of evidence or past track record, the review process was useless. Once scammers picked up on this and began scamming sellers en masse, Paypal still kept their policy unchanged for years and sellers started to raise their prices on platforms that forced them to accept Paypal (ebay used to do this). Ebay has since tossed Paypal off their platform. I don’t know if Paypal ever improved.

The setup of this movie reminds me of Locke with Tom Hardy. That’s also basically a movie where you watch 1 person in a static situation (in a car in Locke) conducting remote project management. I’d have never expected a full movie to work with that setup, but Locke pulls it off imo.

When calling that number, the caller will need somekind of proof that they are in control of the car that they are trying to opt out of ads. Afaik, the easiest way to accomplish that when requiring a phonecall, would be pairing phone and car. But obviously Stellantis is not going for easy with this setup, so this is purely speculation on my part.

Apart from how insane it is to put obtrusive ads on a car dashboard, having to link your phone to your car and then call a phone number to opt out of touchscreen display ads is 🤯

There is going to be a reason that they’ve set it up like that.

It appears that in the future, Itch will allow creators to opt out of payment providers, meaning that it’s probably on a per game basis, not per platform. That Itch and Steam are not making a per game solution now, is most likely because their current software doesn’t allow it and they need time to rework it. Itch has promised various changes already, Steam has been mum afaik.

Source for Itch: “For NSFW pages, this will include a new step where creators must confirm that their content is allowable under the policies of the respective payment processors linked to their account.”. https://itch.io/updates/update-on-nsfw-content

I only use Steam myself, so I hadn’t checked Itch Io’s communication yet. I don’t know the platform myself so it’s quite possible that I’m misinterpreting this, but to me it appears that Itch Io will allow creators to delist payment options that they are not compliant with: “For NSFW pages, this will include a new step where creators must confirm that their content is allowable under the policies of the respective payment processors linked to their account.”.

Source: https://itch.io/updates/update-on-nsfw-content

Do you have a source of where they are saying that?

I have seen an article about the Australian political action group that was claiming credit for getting the games banned. The story behind the start of the controversy.

And I have seen an article about the communication from Steam that they were banning games which were in conflict with the rules of their payment providers. The result basically.

But I’ve only seen conjecture and speculation about what went on to get from the start to the result. I haven’t seen any article that spelled out exactly what the different payment providers demanded from the gaming platforms, nor anything about what they discussed in between them.

Edit: after 12 hours there’s 4 downvoters and 0 sources. Another victory for vibes over facts.

I don’t get why the gaming platforms are removing games instead of removing the objecting payment providers as a payment option for purchasing those particular games.

If visa doesn’t want people to purchase game X with Visa, then remove Visa as payment option for buying game X.

That looks amazing. Does anyone know how this could have been done? I’m not asking for a friend, I’d just love to know.

That 10% is going to be country specific, much higher plastic recycle rates are possible and are already happening in some countries.

In the eu about 40% of plastic packaging waste gets recycled, but with significant differences per country: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20181212STO21610/plastic-waste-and-recycling-in-the-eu-facts-and-figures

Slovakia and Belgium are/were the eu’s best performers in 2022. When looking for more general figures for Belgium, instead of only packaging, I found that 38.6% of plastic waste was recycled and 59.8% was used for energy generation, while the rest ended up in a landfill. https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CircularEconomy_nationalinfographics_2024.pdf

FYI, some numbers. The guardian article is still definitely worth reading, it just had no statistics.

*Nationally (USA), Tesla drivers had 26.67 accidents per 1,000 drivers. This was up from 23.54 last year.

The Ram and Subaru brands were again among the most accident-prone. Ram had 23.15 per 1,000 drivers while Subaru had 22.89.

…

As of October 2024, there have been hundreds of documented nonfatal incidents involving Autopilot and fifty-one reported fatalities, forty-four of which NHTSA investigations or expert testimony later verified and two that NHTSA’s Office of Defect Investigations verified as happening during the engagement of Full Self-Driving (FSD).*

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2025/02/11/tesla-again-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/

Use the UK flag if the site is in English and use the American flag if it’s in Webster English. Seems pretty evident to me.

Starting with pulling on the door is already impolite imo. If there is no visual cue as to the occupancy of the room, then the first thing one should do is knock. If the light is off or the occupancy signal says it’s free, then sure, try the handle. Otherwise knock first, give the person who is shitting there a chance to reply with “occupied” or to knock back. But looking through gaps or trying if the door opens with the handle and then going “oops sorry”, please no.

Same goes up for offices, meeting spaces, bedrooms etc, when the door is closed and it could be occupied, always knock before attempting to enter. Less bad when someone does it, but still, one could just knock.

Why didn’t you try knocking? Knock twice 2 times, with a few seconds pause in between, if no response, then you can try the door. Going straight to looking into the gap is … creepy imo.

Edit: this was in reply to “The only way to know was to look in the gap.”. And no it wasn’t. Knock for fucks sake, have some manners.

The glider attack happened in ww2, not ww1.

If you are from Luttich as you say, then in ww1 the part of Belgium where you’re from, was a part of Germany. The German speaking parts of Belgium, namely Eupen and Malmedy, were only allocated to Belgium with the treaty of Versailles (1919). But since you are from the German speaking part of Belgium, you of course already knew this.

For those confused by the place names: in Belgium there is a city called Liège (French speaking) in a province called Liège. Luttich is the German name for Liège. Eupen and Malmedy became a part of the province of Liège in the 1920s.

Bravo, another vague link. Can you explain how what you link to supports your claim?

The wiki article is actually very good. The historical revisionist is just claiming that it says things which it definitely does not.

That’s an article about a military campaign in a war that was already on going. The article even has a section called “outbreak of the war”, in which the actual outbreak of the war is explained (which was not Germany invading Belgium). The article does not in any way support your claim that Germany started world war 1 by invading Belgium.

Why are you linking articles and then misrepresenting what is in those articles?

This is a very novel take of historical revisionism, first time I’ve encountered it.

Do you have any sources other than yourself that support your claim that ww1 was started by Germany attacking Belgium?