Your first sentence is true but not really relevant to this thread. As another commenter pointed out, it’s possible she doesn’t have the most articulated politics. To expect or assume otherwise is to put her on a pedestal.
I'm aware of the context. I still disagree. This is a person who's been struggling because of the impact of fame on her personal life and been begging to be treated like a regular person and I think putting her on a pedestal by assuming she's a political expert or pundit isn't honoring that. She gave her answer. That's all.
That's a valid interpretation although not an objective one or one I share given the rest of her delivery and vague discussion of "policies" .
She referred to the Democratic Party as "The Left" which makes it pretty hard to take any political commentary from her too seriously.
Sir you are commenting in the wrong thread and the wrong community. Why do that here? I am not a moderator here. I did read all the comments a month ago when the discussion was current and active. You commented here in a combative way and then specifically went to an older post of mine and told me what "should be obvious to " me without any discussion of why or otherwise adding anything constructive. You received several downvotes and were asked to be more constructive. Instead you've doubled down here and repeated the insult.
You seem to have missed the point of the article as it in no way was trying to propose more labor for working class people. In many ways it is trying to overcome the oppressive image that you have in your head. To a large extent, these changes are trying to advance human progress by overcoming the crises we find ourselves facing. You were born in 1953? That makes you about 70-71 but your profile says you're 66 years old. That's an odd inconsistency.
As a moderator of this community I need to remind you that non-constructive personal criticisms like this are inappropriate and go against the ethics and guidelines of this instance, let alone Lemmy. Honestly.
Thanks for clarifying that. That publication can be prone to clickbait style headlines it seems but they also publish some good information overall and I thought it was worth noting
I've also recently added active member @[email protected] to the moderation team of the Lunarpunk community
The enzymes that create Bioluminescence are called Lucifererins. Various animals have them for different reasons like protection . There seems to be debate about why exactly they evolved in so many species of fungi . It says here
Why did certain fungi evolve to glow in the dark? One prevailing theory is spore dispersal, as mentioned. Insects and other small creatures, lured by the glow, inadvertently pick up spores and transport them to new locations. However, there’s another intriguing theory: it’s a method to deter herbivores. The glow could signal potential toxicity, steering clear grazers that might otherwise feast on the mushroom.
Another fascinating hypothesis posits that bioluminescence helps the mushroom conserve energy. By emitting light, the fungi might attract insects that feed on its competitors, giving the glowing mushroom a survival edge.
I think they have sold the last batch of the season but more will be available in 2025 and I think they may be working on other types of bioluminescent plants. https://light.bio/
I brought up fame to reassert her desire to be just like everyone else which I believe you misunderstood. Please don’t lash out and make this personal when this is a place for open discussion. I have heard your opinion and I disagree. I am not saying what is allowed, that’s a moderator’s job, so much as asking for a clear discussion on the topic brought up. No need to further it by throwing insults back and forth