You are young and blissfully naive. Sec being included with development is a recent thing

Good, fuck call centers. Make sure the societal benefit is captured via tax

This wasn’t him 9 years ago dumbass

Few people in that period had the information you have now. People were presented with this economic miracle in the 50s and there was little to no components other than conformity.

Let’s see if any Lemmy users are able to correctly identify why this is happening. Bonus points for American-Style ignorance

When a culture has high levels of conscientiousness and low levels of openness, it results in this. It did in the 30s as well.

Typo on my part, meant UK

The fact it goes off quicker is the key piece of evidence. Obviously, they sell items in preserves too, they are a supermarket, and walmart will sell fresh items, but aldis main shtick and selection focus is “fresh, good quality and cheap”, but stocks vary a lot, so you need to be comfortable with some items not being available sometimes.

For example, I wanted cherry tomatoes last week, but they had none so I had to have piccolo tomatoes instead.

Not in the US, which makes me think the problem is not with Lidl

That’s what fresh food is, not filled with preservatives and processed garbage that contributes to chronic low grade inflammation

By the way, it’s spelt they’re

Signed, a foreigner

Scandinavian bubble I think

Foreign policy

Oh please, another hapa with an identity crisis

Well he is a politician, so its fairly likely this is something politicial…

I’ve no doubt that twitters banning system is a steaming pile, it has a long history of being terrible. Doesn’t change my point.

It literally says in the preview and the article it was restored quickly. There are a myriad of reasons she could have been banned.

I doubt Elon is sitting there with his dick out waiting to ban her, despite what most people here seem to believe?

You have drawn an incorrect conclusion about the specifics of the social mechanics and cited it as “from your experience” after presenting it as fact.

You could simply have a poor grasp of social mechanics, or be misinformed, misunderstood the original premise but ultimately it doesn’t really matter.

You implied lack of conformity and participation is not a cause of bullying - it absolutely is, its probably the original cause of most bullying.

You have completely misunderstood this and are trying to overlay some bizarre Andrew Tate-esque psychobabble to explain your misunderstanding.

You did the right thing. If it was the 1900s and everyone else was to give their child cigarettes, they might get bullied for having no cigarettes, but you know what is best and you stuck with it