GreyEyedGhost

So, once again, equity is the goal and pointing out how there are differences on some arbitrary line detracts from that goal. On the other hand, giving everyone equal opportunities and equal access to support regardless of those differences so they can all reach some reasonable standard for quality of life helps to achieve that equity, whereas focusing on the lack of equity for some specific demographic may not.

I feel like this is a good argument for meninism, but it’s not really a good reason to be against feminism. I don’t think you can house women and men together in the same shelter because of trauma from their abuser. If the man can just enter the same shelter that the woman went to to try to get away from him it defeats the purpose of the women’s shelter in the first place.

Then what is the point of this entire paragraph?

Edit: Like I don’t think true equity should be the goal for cases like domestic abuse, just because it’s a numbers game. Domestic abuse happens a lot more often to women than to men. The goal should be to help anyone who needs it, even it isn’t equal between genders.

And this one?

Equality doesn’t mean you can only help the same number of people, or in the same locations, but that people have equal access to the services needed. And apparently you agree. Yet you typed those two paragraphs anyway…

Under that logic, no one is equal. I knew a tall, reedy guy who was a great artist. I’m more average height, a little stocky, and am great at math. Are we equal because we both happen to save similar (quite likely not identical!) genitalia? I went to the same school as a women who was about my height, weighed a little less than me, seemed to have a good handle on math, and had a programming style so similar to mine that I couldn’t tell which of us wrote it unless I actually remembered writing it. Is she more or less equal to me than the guy I knew simply because of the greater difference (again, presumably) between our genitalia?

Imagine if we had a group that funded shelters for men and women. Nothing says they have to be in the same facilities - women aren’t all lumped into one facility, either, so this shouldn’t be inconceivable. Also, would it not be equality if all abuse victims, both women and men, got the help they need?

Goddamn, username checks out.

What you’re effectively saying is, “We’re specifically not focused on equality, only on where women have it worse than men.” And that’s fine, but then don’t also say, “If you support equality you support feminism,” because both of those things can’t be true at the same time. “We want to achieve equality between the sexes and for the most part women are disadvantaged, so we will focus on the inequality that is impacting women until they are at least on the same level where inequality is impacting men,” would be more appropriate in my opinion, but certainly isn’t going to be a winning slogan.

I get what you’re saying, and if that’s your perspective then, absolutely, dating someone with kids isn’t something you shouldn’t be doing. But you did ask for it when you dated someone with kids. Not saying your perspective is wrong, but the wording might be.

I’ve been in plenty of situations I don’t want to be in again where I didn’t know I’d feel that way before I was. Some learning experiences aren’t as pleasant as others.

Like a burning bag of poop on the front porch?

They say “it”. One could assume it refers to the chlorine, or one could assume it’s the banned product that is treated with chlorine. Which one someone decides they’re referring to probably has to do with how disingenuous that person is being, given the rest of the topic is about chlorinated chicken and not the process itself.

No one is saying the chlorine is unsafe. Do you think they don’t treat municipal water in the UK? They do. This is about chlorinating chicken as part of processing, and the reasons it isn’t needed in the UK and is in the US are in your own BBC article.

And as far as I’m concerned, none of that matters. The UK has a set of standards you must meet to sell chicken there. If you want to sell your chicken, meet their standards. My country requires labeling in French for a variety of products. Same thing. If you want to sell those things here, get labels with French.

This was sold by Foveon, which had some interesting differences. The sensors were layered which, among other things, meant that the optical effect of moire patterns didn’t occur on them.

This is pretty close to my experience. It wasn’t a hospital, kind of a crisis-level group home situation. The biggest downside was not being allowed to take a walk in the park across the street to stave off boredom, next was being monitored to take meds I wanted to take. Other than that, it was the most peaceful time of my adult life. I had 3 days to not worry about a single thing, interrupted one night when a screaming patient had to be removed from the premises. Then I had a few more days to start figuring out what I needed to change in my life to never have to go back.

This doesn’t appear to be made by the people from either the Raspberry Pi Foundation or Raspberry Pi Holdings.

Given the quaint physics of circles, the expansion of a ring of silicate around the earth would be quite noticeable. C = 2×pi×r, which can be converted to r = C/(2×pi). Plugging in those two values gives us

40000/(2×pi) = 6366.1977 km

40008/(2×pi) = 6367.4710 km

So, taking this ring from 0° to 50° would cause it to rise 1.2 km into the air, assuming it kept its integrity.

A simpler way to write this is

(40008 - 40000)/(2×pi) or 4×pi.

A tiny difference, relatively speaking, but a quite notable difference given the context.

It’s worth keeping in mind that “problematic” could mean surviving to adulthood along with one of your elder brothers. Either way, this meant that it was quite possible to have people who were not on board with celibacy being required to be celibate through no real choice of their own. Or not, which is far more messy.

Wikipedia lists about 5 other uses, some of which would probably still be relevant today if we didn’t have cheaper ways to make perfume. Silly wise men, giving expensive, light, easily liquidated assets to people they believed were going to be fugitives. As well as some much heavier, but very easily liquidated assets. Poorest choices imaginable.

I wouldn’t feel too bad about this. He’s going where he needs to for funding/support. The War on Science is his latest book, and it’s like a who’s who of shitty people complaining about how their academic efforts are being attacked for whatever reason and the real answer is generally assault, harassment, or embarrassing their employers (universities). One great example was a professor being outraged on the infringement of their free speech when the university asked people to not use blackface as part of their Halloween costumes. Note what I said there. They didn’t say they couldn’t wear blackface, just that they should reconsider doing so. That is the exact opposite of censorship. I went into that 4-hour (!) video thinking I’d watch an example or two and couldn’t stop.

If anything, the people you want to reach might find Krauss approachable. Use him as a tool for good. And if you find someone more palatable, use them for the climate deniers who aren’t on the anti-woke train.

Myhrr was also used in incense, balms, etc. They were great gifts for anyone for the reasons you listed, especially during a time when people of that nationality had been ordered to travel possibly great distances and you believed the people you were giving the gifts to would be fugitives.

Complain about that in the news or medicine channels, and probably not the medicine channel, either. This is a science channel, where science is discussed.

He might even deserve a statue? It would be especially compelling if it showed him in the act of killing Hitler, as brutal as that might be.