Yeah, I think the vast majority weren’t in that dumb of places, though I bet there were a ton of smaller injuries that didn’t make the news, because the whole point of the trend was to do it in shocking or obnoxious places (at least for the ones trying to go viral). But I’d guess the majority of people who did it weren’t trying to go viral but just trying to fit in and applied some common sense to it.
Something like magnets are outstanding in their field.
I think they are referring to people who did it in incredibly stupid places. There were planking fatalities, falls from cliffs and balconies. Darwin award winners.
Nah, too late, they blew the bridges and tunnels in before he finished saying “Switzerland”.
Well, with that Atlantic current dying down, Europe might not have to worry about things getting warmer for much longer. Scandinavia especially might get quite a bit colder, like comparable to northern Canada.
Wasn’t that journalist an American citizen?
And I question whether it would even lead to real problems with the current admin or if he’d just call it a good idea on social media and applaud them for dealing with someone for saying such nasty things about them. And unleash riot forces on protestors (or just use it as an excuse to try to ramp things up more).
I don’t think the consequences of that would be a lawsuit. I think they’d go missing and would only be “found” as a mutilated corpse to send a message to anyone else who might have similar ideas. Or, if they are feeling bold enough, they might even do it officially.
Metroid Prime OST, too many good options to pick just one.
That child might conform! Only when they don’t bow to the powers that want to use them is it ok to kill them!
Danish millennials and gen xers who work in retirement or old age support roles should change careers. And zers and alphas getting into it should consider hiatuses.
One… glances to the side hundred… more furtive glances billion… number two giving thumbs up and nodding dollars!
To take this in a different direction, legal or not (considering the “higher power” generally gets to define what is and isn’t legal and might do so for its own benefit rather than in the best interest of everyone, if there even is such a thing), how can it be determined if a subset of a power structure breaking away from that power structure is a good thing or bad thing? What arguments other than “we’ll use force” are there to support a region needing to remain under the thumb of a power they no longer wish to serve?
With the 9/11 reference above, it had a similar effect on airport security. The TSA has been making traveling hell ever since and I’m not sure if they’ve actually stopped any real threats (cursory search says nope).
I’m going to be flying from Canada to Canada later this year and want to make sure the flight path stays inside our airspace.
And every year, sand takes the trophy.
Do they need consent from the owner of the house or home? If it’s a rental, the landlord owns the house but it’s the tenant’s home.
Though it’s always kinda messy turning a human-made rule or idea into a physical law.
Though it makes me wonder why they don’t use actual wings to maintain control over the boat when it goes too far out of the water. Why isn’t the ideal basically a plane that has a propeller sticking down into the water?
Even with civilisation or society, there’s always been a subset of people looking to exploit whatever facet of existence they can, whether it be religion, politics, crimes of opportunity, weaknesses in social systems, or even the justice systems that are supposedly meant to deal with those flaws.
And to add even more complexity, other people who aren’t pieces of shit looking to exploit others form emotional attachments to those who are and are fooled by their lies and will defend them. Others don’t have attachments but see parallels to themselves and worry that attempts to deal with the problematic ones will result in the same treatment being applied to them (and aren’t necessarily wrong because even justice trying to act in good faith can get it wrong).
It’s all a complex web of power struggles and religion is just one set of stands.
Even if the original question was asked in bad faith (not that I think this was the case here, but to address what you’re implying with this comment), responding with “go look it up elsewhere” doesn’t negate its effect for anyone reading. I believe it plays into those bad faith hands because it looks like you don’t want the question answered here to anyone already suspicious of the situation.
Also to remember that government spending isn’t a loss of wealth but a transfer of wealth. There are people profiting from each of these missiles fired (assuming they’ll be replaced, though it still counts if they are replaced by a different missile or system, unless that new system is from a non-profit or public weapons manufacturer).