It would make a difference to the people living there who are too poor to leave.

While I endorse the change, I believe it’s being made to avoid arbitration being weaponized by class action plaintiffs, which can be more costly than a class action lawsuit

Eg: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/mass-arbitration-aaa-looks-to-reign-in-4534306/#:~:text=In one example%2C Uber was,at the outset of cases.

That’s an a-historical point of view. There have been several environmental catastrophes, including some causing massive climactic shifts introduced by prehistoric humans, some of them are documented in 1491, by Charles Mann. Poor farming practices, including some that have been practiced for thousands of years, are a huge factor in desertification. I completely agree that the rate and scale of environmental catastrophe is new, but the risk of it and tendency towards it is not. While I think capitalism is ABSOLUTELY the single greatest barrier to addressing the catastrophe, the scale and speed of that catastrophe could be just as easily tied to population growth as the emergence of capitalism.

Human caused environmental devastation didn’t start in the 1600s, capitalism did. I don’t think humans are a virus, but I don’t think that abolishing capitalism is the only critical step in preventing environmental catastrophe.

The federal government tracks all student loans, they know very explicitly how many people qualify.

If you’re making income based payments, and you have low income, the debt grows over time because the payments aren’t even enough to cover interest on the debt.

2.5 million people qualified for this plan, one of 5 that were put in place.

The plan was largely targeting dropouts, because they tend to be most trapped by loans. They don’t get any income benefit from a college degree, and tend to have lower paying jobs. If you’re doing income based repayment at minimum wage, it’s possible for your loan principle to grow continuously.

I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it definitely would have helped people.

Not to mention that women are consistently sexually harassed in games, and leaving the mic off allows them to remain gender ambiguous

I don’t use Instagram or tiktok, but I’m a longtime consumer of YouTube educational content, and my shorts feed mostly matches. I suspect that the presence of extremely high quality educational video on youtube allows many creators to use shorts as a gateway into their longer form videos.

In short, I think they’re all only as good as you’ve trained the algorithm to make them. Without algorithmic training, I’m sure they’re the same.

Just as a couple examples

Jdraper has some great shorts on London history

Magnify has some nice shorts on etymology

Etymology nerd has some good shorts on linguistics

None of these creators are flawless, and you may not love their presentation style, but I discovered them all through shorts, and they have all taught me new things.

Great to see Greenwald continuing to platform grifters that spread disinformation.

Because there’s another mass shooting every couple days. It’s hard to care about why one dude did something crazy 7 years ago while bullets are still flying. People are much more focused on trying to stop the next one.

He’s pulling pretty heavily from “a legacy of ashes” by Tim Weiner, if anyone wants some deeper background of the CIA that he turned into just montages of names.

That’s daddy long neck in the front

https://youtu.be/2OVUupJ4iqQ?si=gsV0kWIW96R3wLg3

This appears to be satire

I’ve noticed some cool original contributions in, for example

https://lemmy.world/c/3dprinting https://lemmy.world/c/ergomechkeyboards https://lemmy.world/c/digitalart https://lemmy.world/c/homeimprovement

There are also lots of active spaces on mastodon. I also have some hope that as the fediverse grows, it will bring over some more niche creative communities from twitter, reddit, etc.

deleted by creator

There are some good answers here, but I would also note that because the legal system is adversarial, continued investment can go a long way towards a desired outcome. If you can afford a parade of experts, huge amounts of gathered evidence, and contingency plans researched and prepared by dozens of lawyers and paralegals, you’ll do better in court.

It’s an arms race, so the “best” lawyers have spent the most on arms. That also means that even the worst lawyers have to invest a lot to keep up.