I often get BBC "you're not in the UK, can't watch' messages. Fine. Can't pay, won't pay.

I don't think you know Kosovo.

Check out intervals.icu

....while I'm on lunch: why are tldr's at the end of articles?!

Similar. I have 40-person-viewed yt page with several videos (dashcam footages). One of the videos got blocked (someone reported it) and I had to appeal. Things went well as I specified no bad language, blood, anything even remotely 'bad', but I do wonder if things could have been worse. A few days ago there was an hn comment thread referring Gmail backups. I tried one of the processes, failed (it went very tech for me), but I did set up some rules to send messages from certain people to another account....just in case I need them. Yesterday, I actually did need one of them - a message from over 10yrs ago - the presentation of which saved me several 'conversations', at work.

I'm now considering removing all the videos uploaded, some of them more than 10 years old. Not worth the risk of an account ban.

Really good idea for primary account which related with gmail.

"...and it was not unlocked by mistake.". Gah! Combination of negatives!

It's been the same throughout history. Invent a tool...use it to kill.

I wouldn't be as negative.

Frequently we create the tool in order to kill with it.

After that we also use to tool to create.

We're equally capable of good and evil and yes, we are frequently good, too.

It's not negative, it's true.

I'd say it's both ways: inventions perceived as positive at first were later used for nefarious things and the technology used to create military technologies found many civilian applications that turned out very beneficial to the society at large.

Over these years I also realized how little you can do to actually stop research, no matter what your opinions of it are. Even if something is officially forbidden, you can be sure someone else works on it if it's interesting enough, so in the end you're at a disadvantage. There are many examples of it nowadays.

It can be both at the same time.

If you look at my comment, you can construe it as even being more negative and cynical, since I'm saying that instead of creating a tool and finding ways to kill with it, we're frequently building tools just to kill with them, and only later we find ways to use them for something non-lethal.

Literalism is a killer.

...also the other way: a lot of inventions were used in the civil world just after being designed and developed in the military one.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones ..."

Evidence? I use sugar as an energy source. The more energy I use (or plan to use) the more sugar I need. That's a biological necessity, not a craving.

They're talking about refined sugar, which your body does not "need", other carbohydrates can be turned into sugar by your body just fine.

It's not that simple, sadly, if it was my job would be way easier. Yes, your cells (usually) run on glucose but that glucose can be produced from a variety of dietary sources including sugar (sucrose, fructose, etc), other carbohydrates, and fats.

Reduced dietary sugar (particularly the added sugars) is an amazing public health outcome.

That argument relies on the assumption that we only eat/consume if we need energy. Thank you you have just solved obesity, because nobody eats more than the energy they need!

The Egg, by Andy Weir.

https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=3500&Fr... :)

Google does