The hard part is when back to back traffic for 15 miles worth of cars is coming from one direction and everyone else is either too scared to zipper merge or they allow the one direction to have perpetual right of way.
At some point of heavy traffic, the circle right of way must yield for zipper merging, else face my ass aggro merging and beeping at everyone who doesn’t.
Then fix the interest rates. Set them to 0% and do a mandatory income based repayment with a subsidy reduction from the graduating institution to incentivize them to help place graduates in better positions. If you hit the institutions with non-placement claw-back fees they will help.
Very depressing. We’re social animals, and being highly literate and informed while also socially apt, you really realize just how far apart you are from others, which is alienating, frustrating, and tiresome.
They got revokeable permission apparently.
Nice he’s great.
I agree with your second point. I think civilized literate people have to have the nuanced discussion, and I agree the rest is just a hatred playbook.
This is why when you get permission, where you must plan for a decade of work, and they are saying yes, you get them to say in perpetuity and non-revokeable.
That’s what taxes and public utilities are for. Convert them.
That’s the question I posed even though 8 people currently are illiterate and downvoted
Isn’t that the point though, that it affects the 99%?
If half are in each division, and if a few athletes out of 250,000 all perform in the top 1% or better because they switched to a protected division displacing 99%+ who don’t have arguable eligibility for that protected division…
I don’t know if that’s the statistic, but isn’t that the general concept? That it’s unfair to a huge number of other athletes that lose?
No regular user can configure anything. Most are barely literate and have the reading comprehension of a 6-8 year old.
Ai allows them to just say, turn down the brightness, turn down the volume, use this program to open this file from now on, which makes 10% configuration accessible to the 99% who otherwise would have 1% or less.
Continue to work and fuck over poor people is very popular.
Needs very minor tweaks to look like him
I’m sure the actual paper defines this better, but without a definition of what puts something in this category, it’s not useful.
Even for bread, is it all bread? Is it added gluten? Is it a specific preservative? Is it only bread with bleached flour?
Even so, mass produced and packaged is not the actual contributor…
Same with prepared food… Costco makes prepared food that is equivalent to what you’d make at home. It’s that still bad? If not, what other prepared food is fine?
So just a slightly different flavor.
Surprise, it’s religious history.
This is the exact semantic they are talking about in the post. You just have different semantic parent objects. You want trans/cis with parent of woman, they used Transwoman/woman with parent as person. They are semantically equivalent.
You won’t like the answer. If you don’t want to be lumped in with other magical thinkers, then don’t be a magical thinker, else you’re in the same boat and should be evaluated the same. All flavors are the same and all are destructive, just with differing exact details. It is possible to be a scientific thinker and be evil, but this can be changed with evidence on the whole, but it is not possible to be a magical thinker and to not contribute to evil, and those aspects cannot be changed as they are core to a faulty methodology of thinking which is pervasive, insidious, and pseudo-randomly aligned with changing educational theory. If you think it’s possible to only align magical thinking with benevolent acts, you’re wrong.
No true Scotsman. All religion is evil by nature of faith over evidence and magical thinking.
This question should be illegal. Name changes should be simple and up to the individual when they have autonomy. Before then, you get whatever your parents want, because names are just made up nonsense anyway.
There are certain kinds of rules and discoveries that society can make that they must defend by making rules that eliminate anyone that dares bring the adverse ruling up again. You want slavery and propose it back into law? Society kills you for that.