this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
77 points (97.5% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2330 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

now do isreal!

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 1 points 3 months ago

According to what a tankie replied to me two years ago on that other site, NASA stopping collaborating with roscosmos was "a godsend" as now they wouldn't need to be restricted by NASA missions and standards and could really innovate (???) while NASA would be sent two decades back to the drawing board without the russian engines

Uh... NASA and all the other space agencies used Russian rocket engines and sent payloads in Russian rockets just because they were cost-effective, not because technologically more advanced than alternatives