Well the simple answer is that doing that is the easiest way to divide the masses and turn them against one another, thus allowing the rich to maintain control and do what they want
Working in a field were I have to perform a lot of these types of tests, you'd be surprised how many look like Covid tests at a glance - always look at the labelling.
Also, in this form factor you'd pee into a container and pipette a very small amount into the test using the (usually) accompanying tiny pipette.
As others have pointed out, the problem is "How are you?" on its own is generally a greeting not a question.
As such the answer is largely irrelevant - so while it doesn't have to be outright lie, the answer shouldn't be longer than a single statement and shouldn't make the other person feel like they need to be concerned.
If you want a slightly less beaming answer you could go with "Alright", "same old, same old", "same as always", or "Eh, could be worse", or any of the other suggestions already made.
For her part, the chancellor told BBC News that she thought āsustainable aviation and economic growth go hand in hand"
As said in the article, the technology to reasonably decarbonise planes doesn't really exist yet - so the only path to "sustainable aviation" is to reduce it to the point it can be properly offset by other decarbonisation efforts.
That makes these two concepts almost entirely mutually exclusive without proper planning, and just slapping multiple airport expansions down then saying "It's fine, we'll plant a few trees at some point" doesn't fucking cut it.
I'd be honest. Life is as much (if not more) about luck as it is skill.
There are smart folks out there who have spent their entire lives working hard, probably made decent money, but will never be rich because an opportunity they were equipped to capitalise on just never arrived.
By that same score, there are people who stumble onto or are born into opportunities for wealth that most people will never see by sheer happenstance.
My only impression of him being that he enabled your wife's cheating, I'd hazard a guess he was born into his opportunity - and while that doesn't diminish his own efforts, its not a fair comparison to make. Apples to oranges and all that.
Well to be fair, over a decade of Tories gutting public infrastructure to give out tax cuts for the rich will do that.
Will the population remember that, or just start blaming Starmer for not fixing everything inside of a year, who knows ĀÆ(ć)_/ĀÆ
On one hand, its nice that they actually responded, because even that can't be taken for granted nowadays.
On the other hand, they spent more text on telling you they're holding onto your data (and trying to milk you for more) than they did telling you the thing the email was about!!
I'd say I'm tech conservative/cynic with a bit of normie - as I've long accepted that forgoing big tech completely means losing the ability to talk to most of my friends and relatives (because there's zilch chance of me convincing them to move away)
If the right-wing is good at one thing, its distraction. All this stuff about the Gulf of Mexico, Canada, and Greenland is just plain noise designed to detract from Trump fucking around with Trans right, pulling out of the Paris Agreement (again), and all the other insidious bullshit he and his cronies are working away at
Remember when most people knew Trump as that one sleazy businessman who cameo'ed in Home Alone one time, and hosted the US Apprentice - rather than as the largest single threat to US democracy in modern times?
Sure wish it had stayed that way.
Exactly. Just wait until Donnie realises technically all cis-males are trans, as all fetuses start off as female and only begin transitioning to being male six weeks into their existence
Firstly, I should clarify that I'm looking at % margin, not absolute, as it better accounts for voter turnout.
Secondly, if you want to go by absolute votes, then it's worth noting that more people voted for Harris than voted for Hillary or Obama (who both won the popular vote).
She had the 3rd highest vote count in history, but that means nothing when she lost to Trump with the 2nd highest vote count in history.
She was battling Trump at the height of his popularity and needed the same turnout as 2020 Biden, but that simply wasn't going to happen.
As I said previously 2020 Biden had Covid19 on his side, and didn't have the baggage of this election (I.e. Gaza).
Biden abdicating his candidacy to Harris was a brilliant opportunity for her to lift off the baggage Biden was carrying into the 2024 election (which he was predicted to lose), but she didn't - and as such she lost as predicted.
Her loss had nothing to do with her being a woman, and much more to do with Democrats being out of touch and relying on Republican fearmongering to get people to turn out.
You're literally doing exactly what this post complains about.
The overwhelming sentiment of Harris replacing Biden was change - her campaign ran on that - yet she had basically all the same stances/policies a Biden, especially where it mattered to the voterbase (I.e. Gaza).
She had an opportunity to diverge from Biden's less popular platform, but chose not to, and it cost her the election. That's the rub.
As for 2016 - people did turn out for Hilary. She won the popular vote by a significantly higher margin than Harris.
And as for 2020, Biden only won so easily because Trump's woefully incompetent response to Covid19 was still in recent memory - and even that still resulted in a smaller margin than Obama's first term.
Well the simple answer is that doing that is the easiest way to divide the masses and turn them against one another, thus allowing the rich to maintain control and do what they want