But they do, do the same for men. They test men's testosterone. It's part of the anti-doping protocol.
If someone is found with abnormal levels, it can be indicative of doping, and doping by increasing testosterone is quite common. Most people know it by the name of "steroids"
No one would be forced to buy a license from Ford. IF they decide it has to be on every car, and it's that specific system, they would have to buy it out from Ford.
But legislation like that doesn't happen over night. It's planned several years in advance so everyone has time to implement it.
But if that's what you're worries about. I suggest you vote for whomever is opposed to it. And if no one is opposed. I suggest you protest.
If Brittney Griner is so good that she's better than NBA players, I'm sure NBA teams would be contracting her instead of WNBA. Good for her. Probably make more money too.
What's the point you want to make? The WNBA has made a call that it's cool for her to compete there. I don't know what you want me to say? It's a different case in a different sport.
I'm simply informing you that the IBA (International Boxing Association) does do genetic testing. And this woman have been excluded as a result. It has already happened. The debate of which is slightly higher level than the other is pointless and irrelevant
As per what I think. I think women's sport was created to promote sports for women and boost their participation. And also to give them an equal playingfield. due to men (who are genetically different), often have a physical advantage because of it.
If a woman, have these genetic traits that give men their physical advantages (and I'm speaking in broad, general terms). I can understand if there is a debate about allowing her to compete with other women that doesn't. It is after all one of the two reasons women's sports were created in the first place.
I took my little goofballs off cousins to an amusement park, never been so scared in my life as I see the youngest instantly take off like Usain Bolt. So glad they got phones at least because I wasn't sure how I would explain to my uncle that I lost his child 5 seconds after entering.
I guess that’s a problem with trying to have discussion with trolls, they just repeat a script and are unable to engage with the actual points being made.
I'll be honest. I was going to stop after you seemed to think millions of people get severely affected by startup companies failing.
But I powered through until I reached "occupied korea" to which I assume you're talking about South Korea.
There's nothing to gain here. "Quarterly targets" is your idea of underlying mechanics? Holy shit. This reminds me of the guy arguing about food with someone that drank their own piss.
So you are focusing on the US in particular. And no. All information here is not applicable to all countries in "the west"*
The US has a long history of non regulatory practices. Yes. They have plenty of short sighted companies that thrive on short term high risk strategies to gain fast expansion to which they can then fall to for more controlled growth (at least that's supposed to be the plan). Partly due to how bankruptcy laws and business loans are stipulated.
The consequence of failing dramatically isn't that severe. You can just try again.
But this falls back to what you seemingly cannot comprehend. "The west" is not the US. The US is not "The west".
And US have plenty of companies that are very boring and engadge in long term plans where short term losses are accepted as part of long term growth. But like I've said. You won't find them in your feed because it's incredibly boring and normal. Just like you don't read in the news about Jonathan that had 2 sandwiches for breakfast. It's not newsworthy.
You've offered very little explanation of anything. More akin to. "It's this way because I say so, oh and its the underlying mechanic of all global trade everywhere", I'm not sure why you're trying to claim i don't put in any arguments. There is plenty of them. But you elect to not adress any and default to some kind of insult because you have nothing to respond with.
I'm not screeching for details. I'm asking you to provide any at all. You speak in these globally broad terms because hey, at least they will apply somewhere. But things are just not that simple.
My reading comprehension is just fine. But if you have nothing but insults to strike back with. That says more about you than me.
*I assume you consider all countries in "the west" and by "the west" I also assume you mean every country located west of Russia and North of South America. Feel free to correct me if that assumption is wrong.
Yeah you have not interest in anything that has to do with reason.
Underlying mechanics. Such as what exactly? What underlying mechanic are you referring to that is the same everywhere? You want so badly to dumb it down to a level you can understand but it's just not that simple.
You're trying to derive a problem without considering that you might just have more than 1 root.
And I've explained to you the mechanic of "short term investing to maximize profits" are just buzzwords you use. Like a child saying words they hear on TV without understanding their meaning.
Can you for once actually be specific? What industry? What country?
What money back? I told you i live in a social democratic welfare state. Education is free for all citizens. But I'm sure you have a degree in economics and know better. Right?
We see different crashes in different sectors, in different countries for reasons so much more complex than i can explain to you here. You're talking full on course material. Not that you would care to listen anyway.
So which one are you referring to exactly? Which country to start with. There is not one singular capitalistic system that encompasses them all. Reality is more nuanced than that.
This is proof of how you are being dishonest when you keep referring to "the west" and "the capitalist system". You've been on lemmy preaching this stuff for how long exactly?
You are so clearly projecting here, it’s not even funny.
And that is another fantastic "nuh uh. You are!" What a response.
He didn't say he was surprised some companies did. He simply states that they should have known better. Which a lot of companies did. For every company that invested in Russia, you have 10 that didn't.
But you are so hyperfocused on this "the west" branding.
There are so many different rules and regulations for different countries in how businesses are allowed to operate and invest.
And it's so much more nuanced than just profits and stock value. You plan for decrease as well. Because it will happen. I don't know what you do for a loving. But I'm in economics. And your description of reality does not fit the large majority of serious enterprises. But yes. You also have those that takes risks. You often hear about them as they fail or post huge losses. The ones that grow by 3-5% in a steady pace over 40 years isn't as noteworthy to write about.
But you are so clearly being dishonest and disingenuous on purpose to paint a picture of the global market that doesn't reflect reality.
If someone trips over themselves and breaks a leg I'm sure you'd find a way to blame "the west" and "capitalism" for it, followed by a study in how walking accidents increase as availability to sidewalks increase because the capitalistic sidewalk companies are forcing "the west" to build more sidewalks.
They do check testosterone levels for men in every single sport that checks for doping. Abnormal levels is indicative of doping.