SIM card from stork tracking device have been removed somewhere in Sudan and someone ended up using it in their own phone racking up a huge bill for the environmental group.
If I steal your phone or SIM and make a bunch of calls with it, then would the phone company waive the bill if you tell them "this arp242 guy stole my phone"? That's not the phone company's problem. They should have cancelled the SIM card.
Radio Poland could, in principle, try to get a reimbursement from that Sudanese person, but good lucking 1) finding them, and 2) actually doing something about it.
Maybe they do but the user has to enable it and set a limit. At least I have this, and maybe the NGO had the option too but didn't think about it. We don't know.
> Must take unreal determination to fly that far with a near-mortal injury and a literal weight around your neck
And imagine the irony of then being shot by a hunter after you make it to your destination. But hey, at least it became one of the most famous storks in history...
I was imagining the bird fighting back with your own spear...
But truly, the thing that sticks out to me is that the spear is rather balanced in the bird's neck. I imagine that if it had pierced a bit less, or a bit more, it could have thrown off the bird's center of gravity too much to achieve stable flight.
This is exactly classic survivorship bias, right? It's the kind of thing that usually works for the hunter (or they'd have learned not to do it), and the bird surviving to be observed far away is a combination of rare circumstances...
One of the docks I work on is frequented by a pigeon with a blowdart embedded in its neck. I have tried to catch it a few times, but I am not sure that removing it would not harm the pigeon even worse.
One day I ran across two young men on the dock carrying blowguns. I remarked that I was wondering how the pigeon ended up with a blowdart in its neck. They claimed that neither of them were the ones who shot the pigeon, so it is apparently still a mystery which local asshole is putting darts in pigeons.
My mother used to throw stones at sparrows, sprint up to them as they were dazed, twist their necks, pull out their feathers, and then roast them for a light snack. She relishes telling this story every time she sees a small bird resting nearby. Her one saving grace in my mind is, "hey at least she ate it."
Which is idiotic imo, since swiftly murdering a pigeon is much better than eating a chicken that has been through a lifetime of suffering, which is the majority of chickens in post industrial societies.
My grandpa would climb trees to raid bird nests for their eggs. I'm not sure which is worse to modern sensibilities -- that he was predating on song birds like a neighborhood cat, or that he ate the eggs raw.
I believe the story but I’m having trouble understanding how that would be worth the effort unless you were truly starving (which it seems like she wasn’t, since she called it a “light snack”) - what is there, a half ounce of meat on a sparrow?
"This Pfeilstorch was crucial in understanding the migration of European birds. Before migration was understood, people struggled to explain the sudden annual disappearance of birds like the white stork and barn swallow. Besides migration, some theories of the time held that they turned into other kinds of birds, mice, or hibernated underwater during the winter, and such theories were even propagated by zoologists of the time"
That sounds both funny and bad, but it seems that those zoologists did not actually believed the weird shape shifting stuff, but rather the more reasonable theory, that they hibernate under water.
" This misinformation lasted all the way into the late 1800s, when American ornithologist Dr. Elliott Coues listed the titles of 182 papers dealing with the hibernation of swallows"
Which had its roots in a rumor " that fishermen in northern waters sometimes hauled in mixed catches of fish and hibernating swallows"
So it is not that ridiculous, since they did not know yet, that birds cannot breath underwater, but they knew that birds could dive very long and deep. And fish do hibernate and running water is still way warmer, than frozen ground.
The German Wikipedia article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeilstorch) has some more interesting details: there were 25 documented sightings, but the one from Rostock was the only known taxidermically prepared example - until in 2006, someone rediscovered a forgotten second one in the attic of the Kirchliches Forschungsheim in Wittenberg - however, this stork was found in 1935, so I imagine it didn't contribute as much to the understanding of bird migration as the one found more than 100 years earlier.
It still requires knowledge that this arrow is African.
If you have enough knowledge transfer to know that this particular arrow is African z you would imagine that you also would know that storks show up in Africa only in the wintertime...
Is it really unscientific to consider the possibility that birds turn into mice when we see eggs turn into chickens and caterpillars turn into butterflies all the time?
Warning: if you're sensitive seeing injured animals. Link has an image of taxidermy of one. (Though I suppose all taxidermy is injured animals one way or another...)
Not everyone is always in the mood for any kind of picture.
The other day I was reading an article about some homeless people which mentioned some rather nasty sounding diseases they were suffering from; I wanted to look up some more details on that, but since there's a good chance the top of the Wikipedia page has an untasteful image I didn't. Am I able to view some pictures? Sure. Is such a picture useful? Absolutely. I just wasn't in the mood at that moment.
Sometimes I wish Wikipedia had some better controls for this kind of stuff: no censorship, just opt-in blur out some of this stuff until you click on it, like reddit.
In general I think giving people control over these kind of things is a good thing.
I am aware you can do that. Obviously many images on Wikipedia are completely fine and useful I don't want to disable all images, and I'm not going to muck about with a bunch of browser settings every time I want to open Wikipedia, nor do I want to continuously try to guess what a page may or may not contain (which will undoubtable be wrong at least in some occasions). This is a non-solution.
Respectfully, if it didn't affect you such that a trigger can put you in a state you can barely function, and/or become a danger to yourself or others, then you haven't been through the type of experience being referred to here.
I've made no such emotionally-charged and disrespectful claim. There are no such "standards" being discussed. I'm not sure why you've introduced the concept.
The subject being discussed is this, when the person stated:
> This is how you get rid of hypersensitivity after all, by exposure to whatever it is you're overly sensitive to. Avoiding exposure only increases the shock the next time you get exposed.
They appear unaware that there are types of hypersensitivity that do not get better when exposed repeatedly and in fact become much worse and potentially life-threatening.
The person goes on to appear to consider themselves a member of such a group whilst simultaneously claiming they are unaffected in the same way as other members of the group.
But, the group being discussed, as I see it, is delineated precisely by being affected in that way.
To resolve this contradiction, I'm attempting to precisely describe the group, their characteristics, the terms being used and what they mean to me at least, which appears to me to be information that person may be missing.
> In other words: trigger warnings are counterproductive in that they cultivate sensitivities instead of counteracting them.
Or, they give people with a sensitivity a moment to fortify themselves, or delay reading/looking until they know they'll have a moment where they can afford to get a little derailed. Of all the people I know who value trigger warnings/content warnings/content notes and use them to adjust their own behaviour, exactly none of them use them to avoid their triggers 100% of the time. I'm sure such people are out there, but they're a small minority. Rather, they make mental distress a little more predictable and easier to navigate.
Your advice to seek out exposure to the sensitivity is, as a sibling comment says, perhaps better done under supervision a little more professional than a HN comment, but more importantly, also suggests a certain mindfulness about managing the sensitivity. Getting exposed to the sensitivity might well decrease its pull, but getting surprised by the sensitivity is more likely to re-traumatise.
Hard disagree. Some people are hyper-sensitive due to extreme trauma, which can trigger into
all kinds of things that can't be fathomed by the unaffected.
It's also something particular to this site. The crossover of visually-sensitive with those who choose to hang out on one of the few text-only sites on the internet is probably high.
The link is bare and with no clue as to the content other than it goes to "wikipedia", somewhat of click that could be considered to be safe. To me this justifies a warning.
I'm an arachnophobe. If people reliably put "cw spiders" on links to spiders, my life would be a bit better. (Not a lot, because it's already not that hard to avoid pics of spiders online.)
What we're talking about here isn't 'may contain nuts', it's 'definitely contains actual nuts'. This link doesn't have a "chance" of seeing a stuffed goose with an arrow in its neck, that is in fact what is there. Your example doesn't fit.
You seem to be very sensitive to the idea of people watching out for each other. Maybe you should start watching out for others so you can get rid of your sensitivity.
Depends. Some people are heavily traumatized, e.g. from childhood abuse. The title provides almost no indication as to what the content might be (OK, maybe a little, but only if you speak German), so I think it's fair to warn others for whom this kind of stuff can be a problem. I agree with your sentiment for "regular people", though.
SIM card from stork tracking device have been removed somewhere in Sudan and someone ended up using it in their own phone racking up a huge bill for the environmental group.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-44645217