Redfugee @ Redfugee @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

43

Joined

2 yr. ago

Such a disingenuous title. He never said voters were ready for a gay VP, his quotes were in response to a question if he thought voters were ready for a black woman. But I guess nobody reads the article and just throws in their 2 cents on what they think of Pete as a VP.

How do you explain the inverse correlation between income and the total fertility rate within and between nations?

To me it seems counterintuitive that having more money, or like you said about ability to secure a roof over ones head, would mean less chance of having kids but that seems to be a clear trend. Have you actually looked into it or you just making up bullshit?

There was a podcast I listened to a while back that indicated the opposite, the idea was that the better off people are, the less likely they are to have kids. One of the explanations I remember was that the better off people are, kids are just another competing thing that they can do. For example, if you are well off and can go travel for a long period of time, you might be more inclined to do that vs deciding to have kids. Another stat was that birthrates were higher for lower income people.

Again you're blaming the consumer but totally overlook the employer being cheap and paying shitty wages. You're playing right into their hand.

Don't forget that it's the employer paying the shitty wage that is the one screwing over the worker. This is exactly what those employers want, to be able to pay shitty wages and have the blame shifted to someone else.

In Germany it's typical to do so just to make the change easier, you might catch an angry glance by making them make small change.

Italy will list a coperto or servizio on the menu.

You'd be better off looking at porn than spending your energy trolling this thread.

Caring for others doesn't require religion.

Dunno but probably worth it for the amount of transactions they process.

This is such a cynical take. NHS finds a simple change to save lives and you spun it bash on the idea of government.

Do you think it's a waste of resources to even give him a trial? Death penalty trials are long and expensive and often cost more than lifelong incarceration. You might be okay with a low bar for having the government remove someone from society but I think the bar should be high, and the decision shouldn't be done lightly. However, keeping that bar high also takes more resources so the issue isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

It was a stolen unit. As the article says, best course of action is to go back to eBay and report it.

I only wonder if there is something a potential buyer can do beforehand to check if a unit is in good standing with valve.

It's not about going against a candidate that has better chances or trying to prevent a backfire. It's about following the rule of law and upholding the constitution. DJT is not eligible because he swore and oath and later engaged in insurrection, full stop.

This video detailing the event was more uncomfortable to watch than expected, if you really imagine what it must have been like.. Horrible way to go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-TaF2DbaWw

I like the motto of optimizing for the things I do more frequently, not for the edge cases. It's up to you to decide where that line is. But maybe if the need for something larger is rare enough, you can find another option like renting something. I know renting is a pain, but if it's rare you don't have to do it all that much.

I saw in Asia there is a Chinese EV, I think the brand is Wuling, for about ~13-15k with about 180 miles of range. Small car but perfect for local driving.

Where would you draw the line? Health check up? Physical? Genetics testing? Hereditary analysis?

Virginia passed a law adding sexual orientation and gender identity to its non-discrimination laws. This law was challenged and stuck down by citing a supreme court case (I think the one about a cake, but not sure) that said it infringed on the speech of the religious person.

As for how far it goes, good question. When the supreme court case ruled on that there was a lot of fear that it would lead to further discrimination around the country - it seems to be true so far.

In the US there are laws to protect certain groups against discrimination, so no, a business cannot legally just do business with whoever they please if they are discriminating against a protected group.

All this ruling shows is that LGBTQ+ folks are not a protected group and have less rights under the law than other groups (religious groups, for example).

This ruling confirms that people who are LGBTQ+ can be discriminated against in ways that other people cannot.