.eu is reserved for specific function and persons which reside in , you guessed it eu. Just like the Uk will not be able to participate anymore in certain EU program, or HOST those EU program, they won't be able to have those.eu domain. What the FUCK do you think leaving an economic area means ? This is as if there was a.nafta and the US said "welp we leave nafta" and then withdrawing.nafta domain from US persons & programs was seen as petty. No it isn't. Expecting it to continue is stupid, just as stupid as the person which thought financial EU institution in UK would continue to be in UK after brexit. It is just plain damn logical that if you leave a club, they withdraw any damn usage and privilege you have.
Take acupuncture, Theise said -- that energetic healing jolt may be traced to the interstitium
there is no "healing jolt" (shame acupuncture works as well as acupuncture - both can be explained with placebo and similar effects - there is demonstrably no healing compared to control group, just in some cases lesser perception of pain).
The only thing I would remove is this : as opposed to "a "Literary" faction" and puppies I view both puppies : the left puppies and the right puppies both pushing an agenda of their own. Both have at time applauded literary work for reason other than pure literature, be it gender promotion or whatever. If you ignore both of them and judge work on their own literary merit, you are better off.
After having read the some of the controversial "book" the right puppies accused the left puppies of pushing, I could agree at least on some point, that some were obviously pushed for reason other than literature, I can remember one about transgender issue I found the writing so poor I could not see why this book was promoted for Hugo novel. But the same way hold the other way around the right puppies having so obnoxious agenda pushing that you gotta vomit.
In the end my recommendation is : ignore both puppies, ignore the gender or sexuality of an author, enjoy the story and writing. Only the story content should matter. Which is why I am still reading Orson scott card in spite of its view , I just refuse to pay money for it and loan it from library;-), and this is why I am still enjoying call of cthulhu in spite of lvoecraft ebing an obnoxious mysoginistic racist.
" Extradition treaties usually only require that the act be criminal in both countries. " not 100% true it may also require that the punishment be in the same order of magnitude or exclude specific punishment , e.g. see article 7 of extradiction treaty French-US where the death penalty must be excluded as possible punishment. . What do you know about the UK treaty ? If tehre is something similar and the announced prosecution goal is e.g. 99 years in the US or something in the order of magnitudes a few year in UK is not the same type of punishment. That is why even if there is a treaty between the US and many countries , you gotta look in the detail before stating they have no reason to not extradite.
Clinical death only means blood circulation stopped because heart stopped (or beat frequency is so low as to be considered unable to maintain higher brain function). That's just it. You are not dead, you are just in a state of cardiac arrest. Death is only defined by brain death. Usually the brain death follow cardiac death soon after, but the reason we now rely on brain death is that sometime we do induce intentionally cardiac & pulmonary arrest, for heart operation for example, and sometimes even in unintentional cases we manage to restart it. I wish that instead of using the term "clinical death" they would stop that shit and use cardiac and breath dysfunction. clinical death is not really death, and the brain is certainly not dead (at least until the hypoxia continue and neuron start dying en masse). I wish the term clinical death would be dropped because it certainly seem non obvious to many folk that it only mean "heart stopped".
Corroborated means it would have provided evidence for it. There is alas no evidence for such out of body experience, there is plenty of evidence for FEELING of OOB, there is also plenty of anecdote of people pretending they were truly out of their body, but so do LSD people too. Even the red shoe story is very dubious as information had time to leak 100 ways.
That is why we have had this experience with a screen showing random images above a lamp of operation table, and people which get routinely cardiac operation are put in a clinical death sometimes have OOB. So far nobody has been able to describe the picture, beside some vaguish BS which could apply to any image. Soooo. No. No corroboration.
The problem is , at least in the star trek universe, transporter are KNOWN to dysfunction and create copies instead. And that alone is, at least in the star trek universe, a definitive answer. Consciousness is the chemical process of a *specific* brain. Copy that brain and destroy the original, you copied the content, but you lost the original. And in fact if you don't destroy the original, you know got two copies which have an identical memory and soon start to diverge. And that is the evidence (from the perspective again of the star trek universe) that transporter kills and only clone the original.
Anyway all that transporter stuff is silly as there is no framework where this could happen in reality.
From the perspective of the rest of the universe ? No it does not matter. From the perspective of the teleported person ? It sure do. You die. Point. You do not continue. A clone of you with your memory do continue. If you don't care to die and let a clone continue, you take the perspective of the rest of the universe, fine for you. But I take the perspective of me, myself and I, and I would certainly care not to die. As for your ship of theseus explanation : yes we sleep , we replace part of ourselves. But it is a process which do not replace whole neuron (neuron in brain stop reproducing at what , 12 ?) or touch the network that much. Yes there is not a continuity of consciousness, and yes the "persona" itself change , grow or degenerate, but it still continue to be the same identical individual. It does not die and have a clone replace it. That is why your comparison fail.
Car are made for transportation , knife mostly to cut material invented and perfected as a hunting tool before even being for hunting warfare. Gun were invented for a sole reason : killing. Your technicality "he main purpose of a gun, technically, isn't to kill, but to eject a projectile out at high velocity" is the most stupid thing I heard. There may be a *limited* sport & hunting usage we have now, but the majority of the usage , gun birth & evolution, and cartridge evolution was to maim and kill, why do you think 5.56 nato was made ? Or semi automatic/full auto ? or even the first guns ? Hint : it was not sport or fun. It was all warfare.
As for the stupid NRA "pool and car also kill" yes they kill and in absolute number car even kill more, but that is ignoring how pervasive car are in cities, street and how much part of our life they take - and we increase security and lower the number of death per year. Gun by comparison are not so pervasive, take little part of our life and yet kill nearly as many people as car, and murder take a significant slice of it. And gun are perfected every year to be better more reliant killing machine. The comparison is so stupid to many level, you are either from the NRA, or a "useful idiot" to them. You may as well compare orange and jug of methanol (not even orange to apple). When I worked in research we had a name for such comparison : "it isn't right, but it ain't even wrong - it is just plain stupid".
If there was an impact by RF you would expect some kind of power correlation. At least in the picture you show, for nearly all of those you see more impact at II, than III or IV which are 5 time or 10 time higher dosis. The total absence of power correlation shows me that this is far more a statistical fluke than any real effect.
In perfect dark condition, no new moon possibly cloud coverage no good street lamp, I can barely see 30-40 meter away object which have no reflective properties. Try it. With a new moon or better reflective object I can naturally as you say see muuuuch further away. The question is : what are the condition here. People says "human eye see further away" yes and no. Was there other source of lights ? Because if yes it ruins your night vision, and if there is only shadow and nor reflective surface, forget your 150 feet. You'll be lucky with 3/4 of that.
Thinking Distance: 34 ft (10 m)
Braking Distance: 61 ft (19 m)
Stopping Distance: 95 ft (29 m)
That is also one of the reason we dropped first city speed limit to 50 then to 30 kmh - because in city the braking distance due to lack of visibility is very important. I can't judge for the number on really braking but I can vouch that the reaction time is usually above the 750 millisecond range and at 30 kmh this is nearly 5 meter. Or for the imperial unit for the car case we are speaking of : 35 mph for an attentive human reaction time of 750 ms this is 50 feet per second or roughly 42 feet , or 14 yard. So the women would have had no chance to apply brake. The car itself will also take quite some time
so even with lidar:
No matter the velocity, that velocity is reduced 15 fps every second. If the initial velocity
is 60 mph, 88 fps, after 1 second elapsed, the vehicle velocity would be 73 fps, after 2
seconds it would be 58 fps decreasing progressively thereafter.
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t... so even discarding the human and assuming lidar instant response, the car would still need 136 feet to brake, so into yard about 45 yard. Impossible to avoid the woman even if car start braking instantly. That said I would like to know if it did start to brake on its own or not...
And yet among early teenager girl they are still a minority playing CS:GO or whatever. And you cite the 90ies , well those boy playing game many of them tried to program their own late 80ies and early 90ies. And later became developer because they found tech interesting. When I was in university for a few lecture to student (lecture about virus how they are made, psychology, and how to protect , late 90ies for developer) and I had a quick conversation with the women there a pattern emerged : SOME (not all) of the men were there because they liked all tech or computer game stuff. NONE of the women I ever spoke were into that, they were laughing at it and wanted in for the money. Now this is anecdotal, so I can't generalize to whole population. But I do wonder if indeed there isn't simply something fascinating for boy/men in those technical stuff which go bleep-bloop with pretty light, which simply does not attract the crushing majority of girl/women. Another anecdote is all women I know programming where I work now grew into it from other position, and telling them you code stuff for fun is as foreign as speaking being an alien from another planet. They simply view it as a job - like other job. I have yet to meet a woman which went for it for the passion. They do exists, but compared to men who do it for the passion.... At some point you start wondering if all those "inequality" article are just BS and there is indeed a more fundamental reason why women are underrepresented. They simply don't care for it.
Your definition of free speech is incorrect by the way. Free speech means you are free to speak up whatever and nobody has a right to stop you (and even for that there is consequences from prison if your message was intentionally putting people in danger - yelling fire in a crowd - or litigation from private person). It does not mean you are free to chose the platform of somebody else to carry your speech. Free speech is not impeded by YT refusing to carry somebody's message/speech. Just like any forum/newspaper/book publisher can refuse to print your pamphlet on any ground, but you are free to do your own printing and distributing.
I mean due to the right of knowing what sort of data is saved and a right of rectification/removal we have, I do wonder if indeed FB is saving data of people it does not have - beyond what they need for people they do have (e.g. they may add my name as "brother" top my other sibling, but may not have a separate profile about me which they would sell, because in that case that would make them responsible for a right of rectification).
Their business model is to break as much privacy as they can get away and sell the data. And you ask them to reduce/stop that ? LOL. I have a bridge to sell you. They won't stop or do anything until forced by law, or forced to change their business model by having too many people bleed out of their platform. And that's it. Hoping for anything else is being incredibly naive.
You are probably making the fallacy of comparing to somebody outside the country and comparing to absolute amount of money. Which is non sense, and mostly used as an excuse by some to not do anything "hey you are richer than some guy in (insert 3rd world country) so don't complain". What you have to compare to is with purchasing power parity. A low income American may earn more money in absolute than a middle class Bengladeshi but this means jack shit if the PPP is so that the bengladeshi can afford far more stuff - local price being much lower for him. The "they earn only 10$ a day" is meaningless if you do not know how it cost to have a minimum "basket" (a roof, heating in winter where required, minimum food and education). Sure I may earn 4 time what that 10$ a day guy earn,but if my PPP is 8 times higher than his, then I am effectively poorer. So no that "there is always someone poorer than you" is mostly bullshit hot air.
there's a lot of signs that it does: that it desensitizes them to violence
Actually no there is no evidence of such a thing. Please cite your evidence. My evidence is that in spite of having so many violent video game over 20 years, violence among young adult and kid either reduced or stayed stable. e.g. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... in this case totasl youth crime in canada sink quicker than general crime https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... if violent video game had any impact, you would expect a rise somewhere between 2000 and 2015 when video game spread started to peak up for youth, you would not expect to drop it now that it is even more widespread. So what is your evidence that youth are desensitized by violence ? Because they certainly commit less crime today, kinda strange for people desensitized ? Or maybe you were spouting belief based on no evidence. Just sayin'.
Science : "more CO2 in atmosphere mean higher glasshouse effect, more energy into atmosphere, higher average temperature. Science solution : lower dumping CO2 (switch to other production of energy and transportation mean)". THAT solution was refused by at least one of the biggest producer per capita of CO2.
All of it is mostly based on self reporting and anecdote.The problem is that there is no clear definition and evidence for DGU - depending on how you count them (some guy in the street speak to you, you show your concealed firearm, they go away, was it because it was a banger and he wanted to rob you or was it a fine citizen shocked and afraid you showed your weapon so freely ? Some study count this as DGU because they rely on the gun owner chosing option 1. Other do not as it can clearly be option 2). All in all if you limit to what is evidenceable you get around 80K DGU per year. And comapred to gun murder alone this may be a bit bigger, but comapred to gun violence (which include being threatened with a gun to get robbed) this is a DROP in the sea. And while DGU do indeed exists , it is pretty clear they are a side effect of having so much firearm, the same proxy with murder. Lower the firearm reach ability, this lower the DGU and lower the incident and murder. There is a reason dis-arming worked in some countries and it showed to be effective.
Now you may have a Philosophical reason to have gun so readily available, that is fine, but DGU is not a good reason, you are only contributing to the problem. The solution is to lower availability and lower frequency of shooting versus reload for civilian weapon. I have hunted, and even for boar hunting we never had a 15 or even 30 rounds magazine - it was all manually reloaded either 2 sided chevrotine riffle (think shotgun) or bolt loaded. Semi auto and machine gun are for war, not for hunt. IMO basically all civilian weapon should be manual type and have at most 2 or 3 for riffle, and at most 6 for guns, no semi auto allowed. If you need more than that for *normal* usage you are doing it wrong - as a society.
The CIA imports the heroin, and they get exactly the desired effect
While I agree with your opinion that decriminalizing would be better far a variety of reason, I can't condone CT. Do you have any evidence of this ? Because I certainly DO have evidence that drug dealer mix drug together to get a more potent effect (I grew up in a bad city where a few were they discussed it openly - you gotta love the 70ies) , or even a variety of dangerous and potentially fatal chemical to cut the drug and make more money. There is no evidence which I know of that the CIA mix fentanyl and heroin to get addict death and new drug policy. When you m,ix CT , falsehood, with interesting opinion, you poison the well. Just sayin'.
I am assuming that you are saying this in jest, but since some people are truly thinking that, let me clarify : unknown means you have no strong evidence of what that could be. That does not mean that the least likely explanation suddenly jump to the forefront. It is just means that you cannot conclusively assign an origin. In fact many UFO are known to have been very likely mundane (venus in the sky, some plane crash from their angle and orientation stating they were chasing an UFO actually have a strong likely explanation pilot mistook a sky body like venus for an UFO, another one from many decades earlier was probably a blimp, the form described by the people and the movement certainly correspond to a blimp, etc...), but since there is no *conclusive* evidence which we unmistakenly can assign, then they stay as "UFO" as unknown. Think of it that way : if you die isolated in the wood, you will be only "missing" but unless somebody find the body there is no strong evidence you died there, or you skipped to a new life, or were abducted by alien. So you are an "unknown life sign" unless your body is found. But if you were lost in a forest where we known there are wild animals and people get lost and die of exposure.... Then a strong hypothesis is that you were lsot. You still be left as "ULO" until your body is found and identified;).
UFO means unknown flying object. UFO does not mean alien. Just my 23 cents to those who will jump to conclusion. My own hypothesis are that the explanation are immensely far more likely to be something mundane which cannot be proven but neither can it be discarded, e.g. some dust before the equipment, insects or equally mundane stuff. Alien do not even come in the top 5.
If the item is defective, there is in some jurisdiction a "hidden flaw" rules that allow a complete exchange or a complete refund (up to the retailer decision). e.g. if your buy a camera and after 3 month the camera internal sensor burn out, they have in those jurisdiction to prove either the consumer misused the camera (e.g. let it drop down and broke it) or with the hidden flaw laws, give a complete replacement or a free reparation (usually not the case too labor/pieces/cost intensive compared to the other solutions) or a complete refund.
But when you cover your eye, most probably you don't cover the bridge nose arch properly, up and down. This is the same trick people use to "magically" see stuff when having a blindfold, either stage magician, or scammer (which is why when james randy tested those pretend people seeing with blindfold, he made sure to properly cover above the bridge nose arch and below so they could not peak either above or below). In your case the bit of light filtering is enough. But your forehead is utterly opaque, trust me on that one;).
Slashdot Mirror
.eu is reserved for specific function and persons which reside in , you guessed it eu. Just like the Uk will not be able to participate anymore in certain EU program, or HOST those EU program, they won't be able to have those .eu domain. What the FUCK do you think leaving an economic area means ? This is as if there was a .nafta and the US said "welp we leave nafta" and then withdrawing .nafta domain from US persons & programs was seen as petty. No it isn't. Expecting it to continue is stupid, just as stupid as the person which thought financial EU institution in UK would continue to be in UK after brexit. It is just plain damn logical that if you leave a club, they withdraw any damn usage and privilege you have.
there is no "healing jolt" (shame acupuncture works as well as acupuncture - both can be explained with placebo and similar effects - there is demonstrably no healing compared to control group, just in some cases lesser perception of pain).
The only thing I would remove is this : as opposed to "a "Literary" faction" and puppies I view both puppies : the left puppies and the right puppies both pushing an agenda of their own. Both have at time applauded literary work for reason other than pure literature, be it gender promotion or whatever. If you ignore both of them and judge work on their own literary merit, you are better off.
;-), and this is why I am still enjoying call of cthulhu in spite of lvoecraft ebing an obnoxious mysoginistic racist.
After having read the some of the controversial "book" the right puppies accused the left puppies of pushing, I could agree at least on some point, that some were obviously pushed for reason other than literature, I can remember one about transgender issue I found the writing so poor I could not see why this book was promoted for Hugo novel. But the same way hold the other way around the right puppies having so obnoxious agenda pushing that you gotta vomit.
In the end my recommendation is : ignore both puppies, ignore the gender or sexuality of an author, enjoy the story and writing. Only the story content should matter. Which is why I am still reading Orson scott card in spite of its view , I just refuse to pay money for it and loan it from library
" Extradition treaties usually only require that the act be criminal in both countries. " not 100% true it may also require that the punishment be in the same order of magnitude or exclude specific punishment , e.g. see article 7 of extradiction treaty French-US where the death penalty must be excluded as possible punishment. . What do you know about the UK treaty ? If tehre is something similar and the announced prosecution goal is e.g. 99 years in the US or something in the order of magnitudes a few year in UK is not the same type of punishment. That is why even if there is a treaty between the US and many countries , you gotta look in the detail before stating they have no reason to not extradite.
Clinical death only means blood circulation stopped because heart stopped (or beat frequency is so low as to be considered unable to maintain higher brain function). That's just it. You are not dead, you are just in a state of cardiac arrest. Death is only defined by brain death. Usually the brain death follow cardiac death soon after, but the reason we now rely on brain death is that sometime we do induce intentionally cardiac & pulmonary arrest, for heart operation for example, and sometimes even in unintentional cases we manage to restart it. I wish that instead of using the term "clinical death" they would stop that shit and use cardiac and breath dysfunction. clinical death is not really death, and the brain is certainly not dead (at least until the hypoxia continue and neuron start dying en masse). I wish the term clinical death would be dropped because it certainly seem non obvious to many folk that it only mean "heart stopped".
Corroborated means it would have provided evidence for it. There is alas no evidence for such out of body experience, there is plenty of evidence for FEELING of OOB, there is also plenty of anecdote of people pretending they were truly out of their body, but so do LSD people too. Even the red shoe story is very dubious as information had time to leak 100 ways.
That is why we have had this experience with a screen showing random images above a lamp of operation table, and people which get routinely cardiac operation are put in a clinical death sometimes have OOB. So far nobody has been able to describe the picture, beside some vaguish BS which could apply to any image. Soooo. No. No corroboration.
The problem is , at least in the star trek universe, transporter are KNOWN to dysfunction and create copies instead. And that alone is, at least in the star trek universe, a definitive answer. Consciousness is the chemical process of a *specific* brain. Copy that brain and destroy the original, you copied the content, but you lost the original. And in fact if you don't destroy the original, you know got two copies which have an identical memory and soon start to diverge. And that is the evidence (from the perspective again of the star trek universe) that transporter kills and only clone the original.
Anyway all that transporter stuff is silly as there is no framework where this could happen in reality.
From the perspective of the rest of the universe ? No it does not matter. From the perspective of the teleported person ? It sure do. You die. Point. You do not continue. A clone of you with your memory do continue. If you don't care to die and let a clone continue, you take the perspective of the rest of the universe, fine for you. But I take the perspective of me, myself and I, and I would certainly care not to die. As for your ship of theseus explanation : yes we sleep , we replace part of ourselves. But it is a process which do not replace whole neuron (neuron in brain stop reproducing at what , 12 ?) or touch the network that much. Yes there is not a continuity of consciousness, and yes the "persona" itself change , grow or degenerate, but it still continue to be the same identical individual. It does not die and have a clone replace it. That is why your comparison fail.
Car are made for transportation , knife mostly to cut material invented and perfected as a hunting tool before even being for hunting warfare. Gun were invented for a sole reason : killing. Your technicality "he main purpose of a gun, technically, isn't to kill, but to eject a projectile out at high velocity" is the most stupid thing I heard. There may be a *limited* sport & hunting usage we have now, but the majority of the usage , gun birth & evolution, and cartridge evolution was to maim and kill, why do you think 5.56 nato was made ? Or semi automatic/full auto ? or even the first guns ? Hint : it was not sport or fun. It was all warfare.
As for the stupid NRA "pool and car also kill" yes they kill and in absolute number car even kill more, but that is ignoring how pervasive car are in cities, street and how much part of our life they take - and we increase security and lower the number of death per year. Gun by comparison are not so pervasive, take little part of our life and yet kill nearly as many people as car, and murder take a significant slice of it. And gun are perfected every year to be better more reliant killing machine. The comparison is so stupid to many level, you are either from the NRA, or a "useful idiot" to them. You may as well compare orange and jug of methanol (not even orange to apple). When I worked in research we had a name for such comparison : "it isn't right, but it ain't even wrong - it is just plain stupid".
If there was an impact by RF you would expect some kind of power correlation. At least in the picture you show, for nearly all of those you see more impact at II, than III or IV which are 5 time or 10 time higher dosis. The total absence of power correlation shows me that this is far more a statistical fluke than any real effect.
In perfect dark condition, no new moon possibly cloud coverage no good street lamp, I can barely see 30-40 meter away object which have no reflective properties. Try it. With a new moon or better reflective object I can naturally as you say see muuuuch further away. The question is : what are the condition here. People says "human eye see further away" yes and no. Was there other source of lights ? Because if yes it ruins your night vision, and if there is only shadow and nor reflective surface, forget your 150 feet. You'll be lucky with 3/4 of that.
That is also one of the reason we dropped first city speed limit to 50 then to 30 kmh - because in city the braking distance due to lack of visibility is very important. I can't judge for the number on really braking but I can vouch that the reaction time is usually above the 750 millisecond range and at 30 kmh this is nearly 5 meter. Or for the imperial unit for the car case we are speaking of : 35 mph for an attentive human reaction time of 750 ms this is 50 feet per second or roughly 42 feet , or 14 yard. So the women would have had no chance to apply brake. The car itself will also take quite some time so even with lidar :
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t...
so even discarding the human and assuming lidar instant response, the car would still need 136 feet to brake, so into yard about 45 yard. Impossible to avoid the woman even if car start braking instantly. That said I would like to know if it did start to brake on its own or not...
And yet among early teenager girl they are still a minority playing CS:GO or whatever. And you cite the 90ies , well those boy playing game many of them tried to program their own late 80ies and early 90ies. And later became developer because they found tech interesting. When I was in university for a few lecture to student (lecture about virus how they are made, psychology, and how to protect , late 90ies for developer) and I had a quick conversation with the women there a pattern emerged : SOME (not all) of the men were there because they liked all tech or computer game stuff. NONE of the women I ever spoke were into that, they were laughing at it and wanted in for the money. Now this is anecdotal, so I can't generalize to whole population. But I do wonder if indeed there isn't simply something fascinating for boy/men in those technical stuff which go bleep-bloop with pretty light, which simply does not attract the crushing majority of girl/women. Another anecdote is all women I know programming where I work now grew into it from other position, and telling them you code stuff for fun is as foreign as speaking being an alien from another planet. They simply view it as a job - like other job. I have yet to meet a woman which went for it for the passion. They do exists, but compared to men who do it for the passion.... At some point you start wondering if all those "inequality" article are just BS and there is indeed a more fundamental reason why women are underrepresented. They simply don't care for it.
Your definition of free speech is incorrect by the way. Free speech means you are free to speak up whatever and nobody has a right to stop you (and even for that there is consequences from prison if your message was intentionally putting people in danger - yelling fire in a crowd - or litigation from private person). It does not mean you are free to chose the platform of somebody else to carry your speech. Free speech is not impeded by YT refusing to carry somebody's message/speech. Just like any forum/newspaper/book publisher can refuse to print your pamphlet on any ground, but you are free to do your own printing and distributing.
I mean due to the right of knowing what sort of data is saved and a right of rectification/removal we have, I do wonder if indeed FB is saving data of people it does not have - beyond what they need for people they do have (e.g. they may add my name as "brother" top my other sibling, but may not have a separate profile about me which they would sell, because in that case that would make them responsible for a right of rectification).
Their business model is to break as much privacy as they can get away and sell the data. And you ask them to reduce/stop that ? LOL. I have a bridge to sell you. They won't stop or do anything until forced by law, or forced to change their business model by having too many people bleed out of their platform. And that's it. Hoping for anything else is being incredibly naive.
You are probably making the fallacy of comparing to somebody outside the country and comparing to absolute amount of money. Which is non sense, and mostly used as an excuse by some to not do anything "hey you are richer than some guy in (insert 3rd world country) so don't complain". What you have to compare to is with purchasing power parity. A low income American may earn more money in absolute than a middle class Bengladeshi but this means jack shit if the PPP is so that the bengladeshi can afford far more stuff - local price being much lower for him. The "they earn only 10$ a day" is meaningless if you do not know how it cost to have a minimum "basket" (a roof, heating in winter where required, minimum food and education). Sure I may earn 4 time what that 10$ a day guy earn,but if my PPP is 8 times higher than his, then I am effectively poorer. So no that "there is always someone poorer than you" is mostly bullshit hot air.
Actually no there is no evidence of such a thing. Please cite your evidence. My evidence is that in spite of having so many violent video game over 20 years, violence among young adult and kid either reduced or stayed stable. e.g. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... in this case totasl youth crime in canada sink quicker than general crime https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... if violent video game had any impact, you would expect a rise somewhere between 2000 and 2015 when video game spread started to peak up for youth, you would not expect to drop it now that it is even more widespread. So what is your evidence that youth are desensitized by violence ? Because they certainly commit less crime today, kinda strange for people desensitized ? Or maybe you were spouting belief based on no evidence. Just sayin'.
Science : "more CO2 in atmosphere mean higher glasshouse effect, more energy into atmosphere, higher average temperature. Science solution : lower dumping CO2 (switch to other production of energy and transportation mean)". THAT solution was refused by at least one of the biggest producer per capita of CO2.
All of it is mostly based on self reporting and anecdote.The problem is that there is no clear definition and evidence for DGU - depending on how you count them (some guy in the street speak to you, you show your concealed firearm, they go away, was it because it was a banger and he wanted to rob you or was it a fine citizen shocked and afraid you showed your weapon so freely ? Some study count this as DGU because they rely on the gun owner chosing option 1. Other do not as it can clearly be option 2). All in all if you limit to what is evidenceable you get around 80K DGU per year. And comapred to gun murder alone this may be a bit bigger, but comapred to gun violence (which include being threatened with a gun to get robbed) this is a DROP in the sea. And while DGU do indeed exists , it is pretty clear they are a side effect of having so much firearm, the same proxy with murder. Lower the firearm reach ability, this lower the DGU and lower the incident and murder. There is a reason dis-arming worked in some countries and it showed to be effective.
Now you may have a Philosophical reason to have gun so readily available, that is fine, but DGU is not a good reason, you are only contributing to the problem. The solution is to lower availability and lower frequency of shooting versus reload for civilian weapon. I have hunted, and even for boar hunting we never had a 15 or even 30 rounds magazine - it was all manually reloaded either 2 sided chevrotine riffle (think shotgun) or bolt loaded. Semi auto and machine gun are for war, not for hunt. IMO basically all civilian weapon should be manual type and have at most 2 or 3 for riffle, and at most 6 for guns, no semi auto allowed. If you need more than that for *normal* usage you are doing it wrong - as a society.
While I agree with your opinion that decriminalizing would be better far a variety of reason, I can't condone CT. Do you have any evidence of this ? Because I certainly DO have evidence that drug dealer mix drug together to get a more potent effect (I grew up in a bad city where a few were they discussed it openly - you gotta love the 70ies) , or even a variety of dangerous and potentially fatal chemical to cut the drug and make more money. There is no evidence which I know of that the CIA mix fentanyl and heroin to get addict death and new drug policy. When you m,ix CT , falsehood, with interesting opinion, you poison the well. Just sayin'.
I am assuming that you are saying this in jest, but since some people are truly thinking that, let me clarify : unknown means you have no strong evidence of what that could be. That does not mean that the least likely explanation suddenly jump to the forefront. It is just means that you cannot conclusively assign an origin. In fact many UFO are known to have been very likely mundane (venus in the sky, some plane crash from their angle and orientation stating they were chasing an UFO actually have a strong likely explanation pilot mistook a sky body like venus for an UFO, another one from many decades earlier was probably a blimp, the form described by the people and the movement certainly correspond to a blimp, etc...), but since there is no *conclusive* evidence which we unmistakenly can assign, then they stay as "UFO" as unknown. Think of it that way : if you die isolated in the wood, you will be only "missing" but unless somebody find the body there is no strong evidence you died there, or you skipped to a new life, or were abducted by alien. So you are an "unknown life sign" unless your body is found. But if you were lost in a forest where we known there are wild animals and people get lost and die of exposure.... Then a strong hypothesis is that you were lsot. You still be left as "ULO" until your body is found and identified ;).
UFO means unknown flying object. UFO does not mean alien. Just my 23 cents to those who will jump to conclusion. My own hypothesis are that the explanation are immensely far more likely to be something mundane which cannot be proven but neither can it be discarded, e.g. some dust before the equipment, insects or equally mundane stuff. Alien do not even come in the top 5.
If the item is defective, there is in some jurisdiction a "hidden flaw" rules that allow a complete exchange or a complete refund (up to the retailer decision). e.g. if your buy a camera and after 3 month the camera internal sensor burn out, they have in those jurisdiction to prove either the consumer misused the camera (e.g. let it drop down and broke it) or with the hidden flaw laws, give a complete replacement or a free reparation (usually not the case too labor/pieces/cost intensive compared to the other solutions) or a complete refund.
But when you cover your eye, most probably you don't cover the bridge nose arch properly, up and down. This is the same trick people use to "magically" see stuff when having a blindfold, either stage magician, or scammer (which is why when james randy tested those pretend people seeing with blindfold, he made sure to properly cover above the bridge nose arch and below so they could not peak either above or below). In your case the bit of light filtering is enough. But your forehead is utterly opaque, trust me on that one ;).