They charge of portable water, they have access to free tap water but apparently the tap water is so bad they are forced to buy water bottles. So effectively the prison know they can't charge just for water so they make sure the water from the taps isn't good enough to drink but passes whatever low bar Texas has in it regulations and then charges them for bottle water.
I agree. That's why our society should take a much, much harder stance against rapists. The folks commodifying human life are the people who have turned abortion into an industry. But beyond that, a person who willfully engages in acts that are capable of producing new human life but with the plan to murder that life (painfully, if necessary) for the sake of lifestyle or convenience, are objectively immoral. These are the vast majority of abortions. No medical necessity. No rape. Lifestyle decisions after consenting to sex and either not using contraceptives or having a contraceptive failure. And these folks are the bread and butter for the abortion industry. Almost none of these clinics would be financially viable without this market segment.
Just do an overlay of the number of planned parenthood clinics and the abortion rate over time. They mirror very closely. Why? Because they are the opening pipeline to the abortion industry. But we also know they have a secondary market for dead babies [link].
The rest of your commend is just throwing mud to detract from the issue. The issue is lifestyle abortions. Instead of dealing with the fact that these are the vast majority of abortions and there is no moral reasons these abortions should exist, you try to detract to arguments about contraceptives that are not going anywhere because nobody is taking away anyone's access to condoms, the pill, or other popular non-abortive contraceptives. Did you want to deal with the fact that most of these abortions are without a question immoral lifestyle abortions?
What we have is a situation with multiple, competing rights. The right to the right to a certain choice related to autonomy on one side and the right to life on the other. In a civilized society, when two rights come into conflict, we have DUE PROCESS to decide the issue. There is no due process. Nobody represents the right of the murdered children. There is no judge, jury, or tribunal. There is no effort to balance the rights of one against the rights of the other. The rights of one entirely trump the life of another. That's immoral, most especially when involving cases of lifestyle abortions.
That's about as bright as saying "Don't like slavery? Don't own slaves." There's another life whose value has been commodified and who is not represented in an essential question about their life.
Your logic is so profound that no man could stop a woman from burning down an abortion clinic. After all, if you stop her or arrest her, you are infringing on her freedom of movement and self-agency.
All I want is for them to not be murderers and the industry that exists to support murder to be demolished. If they want to work, raise a family, remain single, go wondering around the mountains, or something else...whatever works for them.
The American system doesn’t care about the centre. They use the media to trick the centre into thinking there’s no difference between the 2 options, then they just have to mobilise more crazies on their side than the other side. If even 10% of non-voters just got off their ass for an hour once every 4 years, they would control most governments in the US.
The continued narrative of "both sides are the same" is astounding to me.
Absolutely, both sides how to corporate interests, trend towards war-hawking when needed. But one side is trying to expand abortion and trans Healthcare, keep gay marriage legal, keep public education accessible and sufficient(ish), change Healthcare from private profit-hungry companies, and keep voting rights for all.
They are very much not the same. One is the baseline for what should be expected at minimum, and the other is about 30 ft below that line, screaming about library books and arguing some parents don't have a say in their child's Healthcare...
Why do they capitalize “Black” so many times in the article? I thought maybe I’m crazy and there’s some grammatical rule about it but “white” is never capitalized.
It’s a form of micro-marginalization. Some people do it without realizing, some do it intentionally. Just another way to “other” some demographic in a subtle way.
You can see it done with the words indigenous and native too.
This is so informative. In programming I’d know to search “style guide” but for some reason when it comes to real writing the search term didn’t come to mind. Thanks!
Different orgs use different style guides as some have already said. In almost all Black is capitalized, whereas white is rarely capitalized but you still see it occasionally.
I’m torn on white/White personally. The reason given by most is that it falls in line with white supremacist rhetoric, and generally has been capitalized exclusively in that context. Totally valid argument to not use it for that reason.
On the other hand I think leaving it lowercase risks making it an assumed default state, or makes it so that white people think of “racial” issues as something that does not include them. Plus allowing white supremacists to decide what is or isn’t whiteness and how we talk about it I think is a bad idea…
More from the AP blog here on their use of Black/white.
one of the only substances to have fatal withdrawal
implicated in numerous deaths (due to intoxication)
harms pregnancy
can cause heart issues, neurological issues, liver damage, etc.
not a scheduled DEA substance
Marijuana
none of the above (effects on pregnancy can include low birth weight and preterm labor - evidence is mixed. Certainly nothing close to the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome).
There is conflicting data on the outcome of marijuana with pregnancy around the effect on birth weight and potential for preterm labor. To be clear: marijuana is not recommended in pregnancy.
The point I was trying to draw was between fetal alcohol syndrome, which is potentially devastating and the evidence is conclusive.
Good article. That being said, the examples provided against remote work ("salespeople were taking calls from the top of mountains on hiking trips") don't paint a true picture of what remote work has become. There is much opportunity for scheduled collaboration, and still some incidents of unscheduled collaboration (aka water cooler moments) via remote work.
Best quote in the article: "The number one thing people want out of a workplace is concentration space.. You're not going to get them into a place just built for social interaction. You've got to be able to concentrate...." That's where most workplaces are shockingly deficient. Most offices are designed to keep workers precariously balanced between concentrating on work tasks and the threat of immediate distraction by coworkers. "Open Office Design" necessitated more space for meeting rooms, and overbooking of meeting rooms necessitated off-site meetings.
Every article arguing for Return To Office conveniently overlooks several shockingly obvious points: PRODUCTIVITY WENT UP when people worked from home. Workers didn't have to spend hours of time commuting to/from work. Workers didn't have to spend money on gasoline and parking and day care for their kids or their dogs. Workers didn't have to lose an entire day of work if they felt sick but were unsure if they were contagious. Workers Didn't Have To Work From An Office. They still don't.
Just to point out, latest research shows productivity is a wash. Essentially, experienced workers saw productivity boost, while new hires since WFH have shown low productivity growth over the last 3 years. The leading theory is experience sharing that happened in person, in a casual manner, had a much larger impact in growing the company talent over longer terms.
Firms need to adapt to keep their talent competitive. Some firms choosing to go back to office is just one strategy.
I watched a Netflix stand up special yesterday where the comedian said that whenever Biden finishes a speech he turns into a Roomba and I couldn’t stop laughing at how accurate it is 😂. He just aimlessly wanders around the platform trying to figure out where to go next until his handlers get him.
I think there may be some genetic variation. I am pretty weak when it comes to spicy food but some kinds I seem to be immune to, for example those hot M&Ms I cannot taste but my friends did.
We still wear masks anytime we go to crowded indoor places (grocery store, concert, movies, planes, etc.). The advice about masking on the days/weeks leading up to a big trip is also very good. You don’t want to waste money you spent for a vacation if you get sick right before your trip.
I used to use TT before I found out that my money was being spent on lobbying for more complicated taxes.
Now I use Free Tax USA. I used to pay upwards of $80 to file for myself and my businesses and now it's free. I give them $25 just because I want to support them, but I don't have to.
MOST people qualify for free online tax prep. Do not let these fucking evil vampire fucks like Intuit get your money and spread the word to friends, family, and internet strangers.
I thought this was might just grieving parents blaming something coincidental, until reading this article. I didn't know that there are other cases of the spiciness of these new peppers seem to be causing problems for some people. Still no clear evidence, but it's possible there's something.
"These ultraspicy peppers may either contain a unique vasoactive substance, or there is a dose-related effect of capsaicin concentration that can trigger RCVS," the doctors concluded. "Further research in this area is needed to determine the exact pathophysiology of this phenomenon. This case provides further evidence that ingestion of hot peppers may lead to serious consequences and that further research is needed to assess their safety."
I don’t think it’s really as surprising as people in this thread seem to think.
It’s not just “ouch my mouth”. Your body has an extreme, undeniable stress reaction to the chip. Its not inconceivable that could push an underlying condition over the edge.
If this was a story about a sedentary 14 year old who died after being challenged to run a marathon with no training, people wouldn’t be saying “Oh wow, I didn’t think jogging could kill you”.
I had no idea you could die from jogging a marathon so I think you would be wrong about that. It seems to be very rare but can happen depending on your family history of heart attacks and things like obesity, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels for anyone else wondering about it. When you said sedentary I thought you meant if you don’t exercise regularly you will die from doing exercise but it’s not like that.
I had no idea you could die from jogging a marathon so I think you would be wrong about that.
Literally the first person to run a marathon, the Greek runner Pheidippides bringing the news to Athens about the Greek victory over the Persians at Marathon, died from exhaustion, his last words being "Rejoice, we conquer!" as he collapsed.
I’m not sure why you’re offended. I read this article that said this isn’t a problem unless you have heart problems. You can appear fit and still have a heart problem, “the biggest danger to younger, otherwise healthy runners is undiagnosed hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a genetic condition that enlarges part of your heart muscle.” I’m in a blue state lmao but thanks for implying I’m uneducated. America’s education has also been shitty, I would be surprised if they cover this at all in other states.
That emphasized line is typical when someone wants to ban something but doesn’t have any proof that it’s actually dangerous. See the US government and conservative’s reasoning for keeping marijuana banned or the federal government banning vaping (while allowing cigarette sales to continue). In both cases the weak justification for the bans are “we don’t like this stuff and there’s not enough research proving it’s safe!” Meanwhile they try to hamstring anyone who wants to conduct a study unless the objective of the study is to bolster the ban.
Doesn’t seem like that applies here since the researcher said “we need more data to determine its safety”, implying it’s unsafe until we can prove it safe even though countless people eat this spicy shit every day without any noteworthy issues. He’s acting like this is the first time the human race has discovered spicy food and it’s some big mystery.
"Implying" is a very subjective word. Nowhere in the article did a doctor mention they wanted to ban peppers, just research them more to ensure their safety.
There's no code word phraseology here...just the intent to do more science to learn more.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.