This society knows that sex is what leads to children. What it doesn't know is how to verify if a child belongs to a particular man.
As this society is patriarchal in nature, it's very important to the leaders/men that their lineage is protected. So they need a way to ensure that children's bloodline can be properly guaranteed. The only way to control that is to make sure that women are bound to a specific man, and that sex with any other man is forbidden/disgusting. This is why bastard children and unwed mothers have historically been treated with such disdain. But men were often given a pass. The women were screwing up lineage tracking.
Tracking is less an issue these days, but the social conditioning is still there. We've forgotten why we prioritized it in the first place (right or wrong). Now it's the way many people think because it's been the way we've behaved for so long, much of society is geared around it being a basic truth.
So could any restaurant chain. Are they not allowed to eat out? Or shop at stores? Or have a favorite sports team?
There's a point where it becomes unreasonable to ask them to stay neutral and detached. Especially as they can always recuse themselves.
Edit:typo
Edit 2: there's also a major difference between political decisions and any other matter that comes before the court. The Supreme Court is tasked with overseeing a number of government cases. That's a primary responsibility. They need to be apolitical in order to handle that aspect of their work--or they would need to recuse themselves constantly.
But they are still people. They can still have preferences. They can still do good in the world beyond their jobs.
Recusing from the rare overlap of a particular cause is reasonable. Recusing for political bias is not.
Apolitical fundraising is fine.
Edit 3: I'd appreciate hearing an actual argument here instead of just down voting. Without that it seems like people just don't like a different point of view
It blows my mind that so many questions in this community could be instantly answered by Google. Just typing "whinging" gives its definition and identifies it as British.
The question wasn't stupid. But OP was too lazy to even try and do their own research. Which ironically resulted in more work for them.
This isn't wrong, but it's misleading. A huge portion of that statement is based on newborns dying. There were also early advances in medicine that helped by the time around the birth of America. (Which is where this judge serves/gained a lifetime appointment.)
In 1850 (in Wales, which is a good representation of a Western civilization), 20 year olds could expect to live into their 60s. And 50 year olds into their 70s. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
While the 90+ crowd is an exception, that's true even in our time. But living into your 70s was not unusual when the laws were written.
It's not necessarily lazy. If I want to go back to a particular post I saw on page 1 when I'm on page 2, but it was knocked off the front page, how would I find it? It's no longer on page 1, so back would miss it. I'd have to go to 1 and then back again to 2 to find a post that moved.
It gets even more complicated when the algorithm also changes post order.
Sometimes simple with minor inconvenience is the best option.
Yeah, but to be fair, that defeats the point OP is making by stating their sex frequency. If it's all relative, then his activity is irrelevant when discussing someone else's.
I think the WHO has slightly more credibility than any random Lenny user.
And no, your attitude is not called for. There's a legitimate body that had called the safety of aspartame into question. Whether it meets your standards is personal. But it's poor form to attack others for citing credible sources (a chemistry teacher is worth following up on for chem matters, which, in this case--again--led directly to a statement by the WHO).
You have simultaneously said it's both been studied excessively and acknowledged the WHO has said it needs more study.
Rando vs WHO. WHO wins. Aspartame may be dangerous. And, incidentally, so may working as a dry cleaner. Which seems like a good warning to put out there. Thank you angry, rude person trolling this thread.
Edit: just googled "cancer rates among dry cleaners" and wow... it seems a number of studies have demonstrated elevated cancer rates among dry cleaners. Here are a couple:
I love the discussion here as to possible reasons why the labeling is different.
That said, there's a very good chance it's just because the initial version had 3, got translated, then someone added a 4th item and it never got translated.
Edit: also, telling someone they should feel bad and stupid (along with the other language you used) is a bit rough for a discussion on artificial sweeteners. Especially as OP cited the source, made it clear they had no direct knowledge of the situation, and--it turns out--a major health body has cited potential dangers.
This is a good opportunity for us to be a little more civil.
Don't be too stressed. They've demonstrated that time arises from matter. From "outside," our universe is like a giant book, and time is like pages. Everything that ever was or will be is there. We just can't can't perceive it that way since we're trapped inside.
Ad algorithms might be using more complicated analytic combinations than just "similar sites" as a qualifier. Maybe you're a fan of a product or show (or combination thereof) that typically map to right-wing readers or likely converts.
If they're getting (just making this up) a 5% click-throughs rate with this targeting vs 2% with just similar-site matching, then they probably don't care about a high rate of views by left-wing users.
Maybe? But I know what I'm getting with Sync. Donations to FOSS don't guarantee anything.
And really, once we start talking about donating to free software with the expectation of specific returns, we're basically talking about paying for software. If a specific set of FOSS is only good when people pay for it, there's a problem with the incentivization to work on that set of software.
So imagine a society dominated by men.
This society knows that sex is what leads to children. What it doesn't know is how to verify if a child belongs to a particular man.
As this society is patriarchal in nature, it's very important to the leaders/men that their lineage is protected. So they need a way to ensure that children's bloodline can be properly guaranteed. The only way to control that is to make sure that women are bound to a specific man, and that sex with any other man is forbidden/disgusting. This is why bastard children and unwed mothers have historically been treated with such disdain. But men were often given a pass. The women were screwing up lineage tracking.
Tracking is less an issue these days, but the social conditioning is still there. We've forgotten why we prioritized it in the first place (right or wrong). Now it's the way many people think because it's been the way we've behaved for so long, much of society is geared around it being a basic truth.