Women's issues were more obvious historically. When women cannot legally vote that is an obvious problem. Most men's issues are places where they at first appear equal but are not. Things like you can ask for help, but culture means you lose face and so would not. Or nothing stops you from going to a shelter if you are abused - except that most shelters accept women only and so odds are even if you could overcome culture there isn't a place to go. Or police automatically arresting men in domestic violence cases - as if women cannot abuse their spouses, which the law probably doesn't require leaving it up to police discretion even though they appear to not be investigating.
Men and women are different in some fundamental ways, and so equality is the wrong answer. Equal means either putting tampons in the Men's restroom, thus wasting money - or taking them away from women who need them.
It is really hard to make any other statement about how men and women are different. Even making a claim backed by clear facts (hormones make men stronger than women gets some people mad) is controversial. As such I do not want a minister who because a dual mandate can focus on just one. A minister of gender equity that only focuses on Women's issues is not doing the job, but that is an easy thing to do anyway (and the most likely result given that men socially often cannot admit they need help), but a minister going the other way and focusing on men's issues is also bad. By making them separate we can better track budgets, and if they are not equal force justification/discussion of why that should be.
Cars have historically been broken into and stolen a lot. Thus auto makers have put extra effort into good locks. Some hardware store deadbolts are so bad you anyone can pick them with lock picks - no instructions needed. Only the best deadbolts are equal what a car has. Likewise breaking a car window is typically harder than breaking a house window.
The person you replied to is disabled - or so he claims, even if we assume he is lying about that, there are other people in his town who actually are disabled (I don't even have to look, disability is common enough around the world). While bikes are great for "normal people", they are not an answer for the disabled who may not be able to ride them at all. As such while cities should encourage more biking, they should not make bikes the backbone of how people are expected to get around.
Airbnb is a lot better than a hotel for families: you get several bedrooms plus a full kitchen for a similar price to a hotel that only gives you two beds in a room. That kitchen will save a typical family $100/day over a hotel if they cook their own meals.
China and Vietnam have been at war reciently, more reciently than with the US, and Vietnam sees more war with China as likely while war with the US is unlikely. There is even a possibility if China and Vietnam go to war again Vietnam can bring the US in on their side. Better relations thus are great for Vietnam in general, except if war with China happens and the US isn't yet close enough to get involved.
Expensive, but NYC is making the costs far more than reasonable. There is a big cost problem in NYC, which combines with an unstated policy of not caring. (If they cared it would be done, but of course saying you don't care is illegal)
Maybe, Xi seems just sane enough not to try, but who knows. China and Russia can't really win against NATO though they make things harder. India likely hates China enough to join NATO as well.
Of course we are talking nuclear armed countries so everyone loses is possible.
There isn't anyone really on that side . China and NATO have differences, but China doesn't have anything to gain from helping Russia, and nthey lose a lot is NATO loses. They will sit out. Similar with India, they will stay out . Iran or a few other small counties might consider joining, but I doubt it as most are smart enough to know that is suicide.
They can beef of linux support of freebsd a little and do some other help to the desktop experience there. Freebsd has always been more pragmatic, and for most uses of an os you can't tell a real world difference. (pkg instead of apt, and other such differences are minor)
Running for a third term is enough in my opinion. At no level do I vote for someone who has had two consecutive terms, they need to get out and see the real world outside of power.
I'm hoping for a third party I can vote for. As a 'right wing', 'liberal', and whatever other labels you want to put on me... the R's stated values most closely match what I want in general, but i've votes mostly thrid party for decades now as few I can trust to vote my values are running. The third party I vote for is of course wackos I wouldn't want to win, but they won't and maybe my vote sends a message.
Women's issues were more obvious historically. When women cannot legally vote that is an obvious problem. Most men's issues are places where they at first appear equal but are not. Things like you can ask for help, but culture means you lose face and so would not. Or nothing stops you from going to a shelter if you are abused - except that most shelters accept women only and so odds are even if you could overcome culture there isn't a place to go. Or police automatically arresting men in domestic violence cases - as if women cannot abuse their spouses, which the law probably doesn't require leaving it up to police discretion even though they appear to not be investigating.