How do you reverse a chemical castration if it's later revealed the person was wrongfully convicted?

You stop the regimen of drugs and the primary effect ceases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

I'm not arguing for the policy, I think violating someones bodily authority is inherently evil and should not be on the table even as a result of a criminal conviction.

But I think our objections should follow the science, we should object to the harm caused to the (falsely)convicted while on the drugs rather than the permencance of the sentence.

America and the USSR agreed to partition Korea along the 38th parallel after liberating it from imperial Japanese rule.

Subsequent to that the Chinese communists agreed to arm and back north Korea in return for Korean support during China's civil war.

Later on North Korea launched an invasion of South Korea I feel like this is a very important point you somehow completely failed to mention. They then captured most of the Korean peninsula down to Busan.

At this point the US (technically the UN but most forces were US) reinforced the ROK troops reclaimed the lost territory and invaded the north capturing Pyongyang.

At this point China reinforced the north Koreans and recaptured Pyongyang the fighting then stalemated around the 38th parallel after years of fighting an armistice was agreed and the current borders were agreed.

Your protratal of the US deciding on a whim to butcher the poor north Koreans then impose a separation on them would be laughable in how poorly it conveys events if you weren't seeking to mis-atribute the cause of a war that killed 3 million people

As much as I dislike the fact that the "flagship" instance for lemmy is an echo chamber that bans for political wrong think, I still think Lemmy on average is a positive and it isn't funded by ads or vcs so it should be proof against the most common avenues for enshittification.

So I set up a recurring donation despite being someone that would 100% get banned by the people I'm donating to if I were to comment on their instance.

Same way I can't stand people using one negative within a larger political platform as an excuse to parrot anti-electoralism I feel like I shouldn't use one unfortunate facet of the fediverse as an excuse not to donate towards its continued development.

Support "better" rather than waiting for "perfect"

Just to add to your (excellent) comment; in the UK you can be prescribed medical marijuana but it has to be done by a consultant level doctor and a multi disciplinary trial. The most important disqualifying factor is any history of psychosis, if they see that on your medical records they will not write you a prescription.

So I would a assume there is some published medical literature they are following which states cannabis exacerbates the symptoms of psychosis.

That's fair, as far as I know it's a screenshot form the redient doctors conference.

I went digging for more information after your (very fair) comment, I didn't find it in the agenda https://www.bma.org.uk/media/g2ofmswk/resident-doctors-conference-2025-motions-for-voting.pdf

But I have found an explanation for that and a somewhat dubious confirmation via this thread on Reddit, https://old.reddit.com/r/doctorsUK/comments/1k97tti/british_medical_association_conference_calls/mpc84s8/ wherin a doctor states that it was an emergency motion and they voted in favour. (Side node; a lot of people in that thread are unhappy about the BMA acting beyond the role of a trade union)

On the one hand it's a random Reddit thread, on the other hand, a lot of people who are likely to have first had knowledge aren't actively disputing the presence of success of the motion and there are anecdotal confirmations of both.

I will admit I probably jumped the gun here, I was just happy to finally see some trans positive sentiment from a UK institution.

So my understanding is that they are the second strongest, but still at around 20% the other German parties formed a coalition that froze Afd out of power. So they are still a threat in future elections, but they have limited impact on policy for now.

Is that correct or have I got the wrong idea?

The interesting thing about reading from different bubbles to get the different perspectives on the same event is just how different the set of events covered is.

The right may be furious about something and the left barely cover it and vice versa, it needs to be a huge event to attract comment from both sides.

Best of luck with the job search, linkedin is awful, but at-least the need for it passes.

"Big government" means thinking the government is bigger and more expensive than it needs to be.

When all the government needs to do is keep me happy then any program which I understand benefits me is vital and any which doesn't is "big government"

Bristol is supposed to be very nice, Brighton is probably the most LGBT friendly city in the UK from what LGBT friends have told me, London is generally accepting of everyone but can be expensive.

Obviously do some more research, but I figure it's worth putting those two cities on your radar.

So as far as I can tell the rule for deciding if a french word is feminine is "does it end with an e".

There are exceptions and French people claim that's not how it works, but it is an incredibly useful heuristic

Makes sense, the code-points split is stable; meaning it's fine to put in the standard library, the grapheme split changes every year so the volatility is probably better off in a crate.