Maybe "heavy snow" means something different to you, but looking at Bjorn Nyland's videos there is plenty of snow and he has no trouble doing very long trips with multiple charges.
I'm not unsympathetic, but that letter to the BMJ doesn't back up the claim. It notes a higher suicide rate among divorced men than among divorced women, not among men who are victims of paternity fraud. Also note that it's a letter, not a peer reviewed study, and while it does cite some compelling evidence it is not rigorous.
Again, just to be clear, I do think there is a problem with lack of mental healthcare for divorced men and, in the United States, problems with the legal system. I'm just saying that this doesn't prove the point made.
As for the "white men" suicide statistic, I'd be very careful with it. Consider first that "white" is poorly defined and self-reported, and that particularly in the United States you can't decouple other factors such as economic status, education level and the like.
Again, not saying suicide amongst white men isn't a problem, merely that the statistic is dubious (google didn't turn it up, what is your source?) and thus basing policy decision on it may be a mistake.
Norway has severe weather, sub zero temperatures for much of the year, heavy snow, and people need to travel long distances. All the things that people say make EVs unsuitable.
Norway put in the infrastructure. Charging everywhere. EVs work great there.
The US legal system is screwed up in many ways, and I agree that child support/paternity fraud seems to be no exception.
So the next question is what to do about it. It seems that all these cases would be resolved in favour of the the man in the UK, so maybe you could look at how we do things and use that as a model.
The situation in France is that private testing is banned, which is not unusual because by its nature it involves two people one of whom is a child and thus unable to give informed consent. Consent and privacy are protected in the EU.
However, in the case where the father questions paternity and does not want to support the child a DNA test is possible. Refusal to take a DNA test, e.g. if the mother refuses to give consent, is generally taken as an admission of paternity fraud.
Reading the first two (third is blocked in the EU) it seems the issue in both cases is that the law requires the man to pay support until paternity is questioned, and in the case of the second one there is a state law that requires the man to question within two years of the birth.
Note that the Daily Mail omits some important details, in future I suggest using the original source which they actually link to and which is more informative.
In any case, the issue is that the state doesn't want to be out of pocket, or rather the voters don't want the state to be out of pocket, so pass the costs on to someone else. That is clearly unfair and should be changed.
In the UK you generally can't get money that you paid before challenging paternity back. The law deems children to always be a "blessing" and thus a benefit to the father for which they cannot claim any loss until the moment they suspect it isn't theirs. Personally I think that there should be some consideration given to the circumstances.
An example of where it fails is a guy who had a fertilized egg frozen with his wife, and then later divorced her. She forged his signature and became pregnant with it, and as the biological father he is legally responsible. As I recall he actually tried to sue the clinic for the costs.
A woman can have multiple partners, become pregnant, and pick which one she wishes to raise a child with.
Not sure which country you are in but in the UK that isn't the case. In the event that you are wrongly named as the parent of a child you can request a DNA test, and if the mother refuses then you are deemed not to be the father.
In order to get a DNA test you of course have to suspect that you are not the parent first. But if you do, there is pretty much nothing the mother can do to avoid the DNA test other than to accept you have no legal obligation to pay maintenance.
Having said that, I think the trust issue is mostly due to a lot of rubbish posted on the internet, not genuine concerns. This study shows that in the UK only about 2% of fathers are the victims of paternity fraud, and that's on the high end of what other studies have found.
Which western countries are these? In all of Europe you can't be held responsible for someone else's child, although if you did contribute to their upbringing and only found out later you often can't recover that money either.
Do you have any stats for the causes of male suicide? Everything I can find that isn't an MRA blog only lists relationships as one of many causes, usually not the first in the unordered list, so I'm interested to know if this claim has any statistical basis.
I wonder if this might help overcome some of the distrust that has arise over the last decade. When the female pill was invented it was very liberating for women, and while things are different for men today perhaps it might also help some men who have anxiety about unwanted pregnancy.
The point is to give men the power to control when they have children, not to allow women to forgo controlling their own fertility.
Also remember that if you want to avoid children you really need to be using more than one form of contraception, because none of them alone are 100% effective. The female pill, for example, isn't 100% effective even if used perfectly, and it's easy to forget to take it on time, so combining it with a male pill would improve the odds for a couple.
This has been happening in the UK for a couple of decades, basically a loan that you only repay once you are earning. I am still paying mine off.
A lot of people are headed for having it written off due to not earning enough in the 25 year time limit. There is also the issue of people going overseas and not paying it back.
It used to be a good deal when the interest rates were fixed at a low level, but now it's not nearly as attractive.
Contacting tends to pay better but has a negative effect on your ability to get credit. When you try to get a mortgage the bank sees people on short contracts as a higher risk.
For that reason a lot of people switch to salary when they need to buy a house.
I doubt the argument that production numbers didn't seem "material" will fly in court. They are one of the basic metrics for any manufacturing company.
There used to be a divide between online and real life. Most people had no significant online presence.
Now it's mainstream, tweets are the new press releases.
Also Musk has a hearing coming up where he could be in full effect do-do so it's kinda interesting... Either he is making things worse for himself or trying to show that his Twitter account is not to be taken seriously.
It's just a shitty marketing campaign. Tinder has a reputation for being full of people exaggerating their physical attributes. They pretend to be taller, to have bigger boobs, to have more money and a better car.
Obviously what they claim is impossible, there is no way to determine a person's height from one or two photos that only show the guy from the waist up.
If we cling to this idea that everything has to be falsifiable we will never make any progress and open ourselves up to abuse. It's the argument employers use to fend of lawsuits - "you can't prove that working 60 hours a week for months on end caused your stress, and what even is stress anyway, are you sure it's not just gas?"
We see positive results from people having a better work/life balance. We see people working more and more, and being unable to disengage from work due to things like having work email on their phone. Those involved cite burnout as the cause.
It might be coincidence, but I bet they would feel better if they did something about it.
More likely he just doesn't want to employ anyone to do the work. Aside from the cost they are all getting PTSD from the horrific stuff they are confronted with day-in day-out. Much better (for Zuckerberg) to offload that to law enforcement.
It also shields them from criticism of moral decisions like banning white supremacists if they can outsource that decision to politicians.
When "Jeff in Lexington", "Anonymous in Boston", "Real Paul Revere2", and "George Wash1ngton" are all propaganda spewing sock puppets being run directly from the King's Court, then we might not have had a Boston Tea Party, we might have had a Boston Printing Press Party, because that's not free speech, that's an affront to free speech.
I was thinking that Twitter's verification mark solves that, but actually it doesn't. The problem we have now is Russian trolls pretending to be ordinary people, not notable ones.
In the post-truth world where all politicians are assumed to by lying all the time, people rank the word of their fellow citizens quite highly. Maybe the highest authority in fact, given that actual authorities are deemed to be lying about everything.
So all a politically motivated troll has to do is pretend to be John from Huddersfield and post a few carefully crafted memes, and they become the voice of the people.
India is just following others anyway. Last week the US tested an anti-ICBM system, and both the US and China have tested their own anti-satellite systems before.
Slashdot Mirror
You forget to add: Norway has the billions of tons of oil exports to pay for it.
So has the US. So has the UK. So have lots of countries. But only Norway did it.
Maybe "heavy snow" means something different to you, but looking at Bjorn Nyland's videos there is plenty of snow and he has no trouble doing very long trips with multiple charges.
Apparently several people didn't get your joke.
Actually the other classic anti-EV argument, the off-grid remote cabin with no possibility of solar or wind power, is actually a thing in Norway too.
I'm not unsympathetic, but that letter to the BMJ doesn't back up the claim. It notes a higher suicide rate among divorced men than among divorced women, not among men who are victims of paternity fraud. Also note that it's a letter, not a peer reviewed study, and while it does cite some compelling evidence it is not rigorous.
Again, just to be clear, I do think there is a problem with lack of mental healthcare for divorced men and, in the United States, problems with the legal system. I'm just saying that this doesn't prove the point made.
As for the "white men" suicide statistic, I'd be very careful with it. Consider first that "white" is poorly defined and self-reported, and that particularly in the United States you can't decouple other factors such as economic status, education level and the like.
Again, not saying suicide amongst white men isn't a problem, merely that the statistic is dubious (google didn't turn it up, what is your source?) and thus basing policy decision on it may be a mistake.
Norway has severe weather, sub zero temperatures for much of the year, heavy snow, and people need to travel long distances. All the things that people say make EVs unsuitable.
Norway put in the infrastructure. Charging everywhere. EVs work great there.
Well done Norway.
The US legal system is screwed up in many ways, and I agree that child support/paternity fraud seems to be no exception.
So the next question is what to do about it. It seems that all these cases would be resolved in favour of the the man in the UK, so maybe you could look at how we do things and use that as a model.
The situation in France is that private testing is banned, which is not unusual because by its nature it involves two people one of whom is a child and thus unable to give informed consent. Consent and privacy are protected in the EU.
However, in the case where the father questions paternity and does not want to support the child a DNA test is possible. Refusal to take a DNA test, e.g. if the mother refuses to give consent, is generally taken as an admission of paternity fraud.
Reading the first two (third is blocked in the EU) it seems the issue in both cases is that the law requires the man to pay support until paternity is questioned, and in the case of the second one there is a state law that requires the man to question within two years of the birth.
Note that the Daily Mail omits some important details, in future I suggest using the original source which they actually link to and which is more informative.
In any case, the issue is that the state doesn't want to be out of pocket, or rather the voters don't want the state to be out of pocket, so pass the costs on to someone else. That is clearly unfair and should be changed.
In the UK you generally can't get money that you paid before challenging paternity back. The law deems children to always be a "blessing" and thus a benefit to the father for which they cannot claim any loss until the moment they suspect it isn't theirs. Personally I think that there should be some consideration given to the circumstances.
An example of where it fails is a guy who had a fertilized egg frozen with his wife, and then later divorced her. She forged his signature and became pregnant with it, and as the biological father he is legally responsible. As I recall he actually tried to sue the clinic for the costs.
It's a shame it has taken this long, but it's a much harder nut to crack than the female pill.
A woman can have multiple partners, become pregnant, and pick which one she wishes to raise a child with.
Not sure which country you are in but in the UK that isn't the case. In the event that you are wrongly named as the parent of a child you can request a DNA test, and if the mother refuses then you are deemed not to be the father.
In order to get a DNA test you of course have to suspect that you are not the parent first. But if you do, there is pretty much nothing the mother can do to avoid the DNA test other than to accept you have no legal obligation to pay maintenance.
Having said that, I think the trust issue is mostly due to a lot of rubbish posted on the internet, not genuine concerns. This study shows that in the UK only about 2% of fathers are the victims of paternity fraud, and that's on the high end of what other studies have found.
Which western countries are these? In all of Europe you can't be held responsible for someone else's child, although if you did contribute to their upbringing and only found out later you often can't recover that money either.
Do you have any stats for the causes of male suicide? Everything I can find that isn't an MRA blog only lists relationships as one of many causes, usually not the first in the unordered list, so I'm interested to know if this claim has any statistical basis.
I wonder if this might help overcome some of the distrust that has arise over the last decade. When the female pill was invented it was very liberating for women, and while things are different for men today perhaps it might also help some men who have anxiety about unwanted pregnancy.
The point is to give men the power to control when they have children, not to allow women to forgo controlling their own fertility.
Also remember that if you want to avoid children you really need to be using more than one form of contraception, because none of them alone are 100% effective. The female pill, for example, isn't 100% effective even if used perfectly, and it's easy to forget to take it on time, so combining it with a male pill would improve the odds for a couple.
This has been happening in the UK for a couple of decades, basically a loan that you only repay once you are earning. I am still paying mine off.
A lot of people are headed for having it written off due to not earning enough in the 25 year time limit. There is also the issue of people going overseas and not paying it back.
It used to be a good deal when the interest rates were fixed at a low level, but now it's not nearly as attractive.
Contacting tends to pay better but has a negative effect on your ability to get credit. When you try to get a mortgage the bank sees people on short contracts as a higher risk.
For that reason a lot of people switch to salary when they need to buy a house.
I doubt the argument that production numbers didn't seem "material" will fly in court. They are one of the basic metrics for any manufacturing company.
The deep state and the shadow government are the SEC? They don't seem very shadowy or clandestine to me.
There used to be a divide between online and real life. Most people had no significant online presence.
Now it's mainstream, tweets are the new press releases.
Also Musk has a hearing coming up where he could be in full effect do-do so it's kinda interesting... Either he is making things worse for himself or trying to show that his Twitter account is not to be taken seriously.
It's just a shitty marketing campaign. Tinder has a reputation for being full of people exaggerating their physical attributes. They pretend to be taller, to have bigger boobs, to have more money and a better car.
Obviously what they claim is impossible, there is no way to determine a person's height from one or two photos that only show the guy from the waist up.
The problem with not giving a fuck is that you then become the guy making the minimum amount of effort to avoid getting fired and your career stalls.
Some places have an unfortunate attitude where taking on more stress is the way to be rewarded with more money, or worse non-monetary perks.
If we cling to this idea that everything has to be falsifiable we will never make any progress and open ourselves up to abuse. It's the argument employers use to fend of lawsuits - "you can't prove that working 60 hours a week for months on end caused your stress, and what even is stress anyway, are you sure it's not just gas?"
We see positive results from people having a better work/life balance. We see people working more and more, and being unable to disengage from work due to things like having work email on their phone. Those involved cite burnout as the cause.
It might be coincidence, but I bet they would feel better if they did something about it.
More likely he just doesn't want to employ anyone to do the work. Aside from the cost they are all getting PTSD from the horrific stuff they are confronted with day-in day-out. Much better (for Zuckerberg) to offload that to law enforcement.
It also shields them from criticism of moral decisions like banning white supremacists if they can outsource that decision to politicians.
When "Jeff in Lexington", "Anonymous in Boston", "Real Paul Revere2", and "George Wash1ngton" are all propaganda spewing sock puppets being run directly from the King's Court, then we might not have had a Boston Tea Party, we might have had a Boston Printing Press Party, because that's not free speech, that's an affront to free speech.
I was thinking that Twitter's verification mark solves that, but actually it doesn't. The problem we have now is Russian trolls pretending to be ordinary people, not notable ones.
In the post-truth world where all politicians are assumed to by lying all the time, people rank the word of their fellow citizens quite highly. Maybe the highest authority in fact, given that actual authorities are deemed to be lying about everything.
So all a politically motivated troll has to do is pretend to be John from Huddersfield and post a few carefully crafted memes, and they become the voice of the people.
India is just following others anyway. Last week the US tested an anti-ICBM system, and both the US and China have tested their own anti-satellite systems before.
Surely the greater shame is using Vim when EMACS is far superior.