There are 2 important factors.
Very few people are doing their research and making a logical decision about who will best represent their interests. They will just vote for whoever their friends vote for.
The way the president is elected through the electoral college means that a few states are over represented. IDK the numbers but for example, it might be possible to become president with as few as 40% of the votes.
This is the solution.
All names have problems but this one has the least.
What you’re describing just isn’t compliant with tax law in any jurisdiction I’m aware of.
That’s not it. It’s simply that if someone comes suicide after watching, no one can point the finger at the producers.
Feeling suicidal usually isn’t something that talking to a friend can resolve.
Getting a suicidal person to access the right kind of help is the right move.
That doesn’t mean you refuse to talk to a suicidal person, it means that part of supporting them as a friend is helping them get help.
That was my implication, yes. Well done.
Australia’s electoral system is far from perfect, but it seems to be less focus on the prime minister then there is on the US president.
Of course the PM still needs to be popular and electable, and we’re sliding to the right like most democracies, but I can’t imagine we could have an election like the current US cycle where no one is really talking about policy.
In some ways perhaps culture and tradition do stand in the way of progress, but it’s not that clear cut.
In Australia the majority of migrants are from South East Asia, which are much more conservative politically than Australia.
For example, more migration is not going to further transgender rights.
I have a feeling that this might be true of a lot of places, just because of the nature of migration.
My take:
Americans are either republican or democrat.
If you’re a republican then you’re going to vote for your guy. They see everything he does as just bullshit and bluster. “He says things to rile up the lefties but that’s just his brand.” They see the legal issues as politically motivated, or “maybe he’s a bit dirty, but all politicians are”.
I think it really is that simple. The vast majority of the population is not making a decision of whom to vote for based on their research regarding each party’s policies. They will just always vote the way they’ve always voted.
I’m arguing that the risk is so minimal that no one bothers mitigating it.
I might get shot today, yet I’m not wearing a ballistics vest.
Everything you’ve listed is an absurd over statement.
often attack men over women, or their ego, or their fragile state of mind has been disrupted momentarily or whatever other trivial reason men feel justified attacking people.
This is simply not the reality I live in. I’ve never known someone to attack someone over a woman, nor their fragile state of mind?
Driving in my car = men are more likely to participate in road rage At work = men are more likely to commit violence at work than women At home = men are most likely to break and enter occupied homes In public = men are most likely to be the perpetrator of a public mass shooting public shooting.
I’ve certainly never experienced any of this and while mass shootings and robberies do occur they’re so rare that being a victim of such a crime is not a tangible risk.
Honestly you’re more likely tripping over your shoelace and dying than any of these things actually happening.
Disingenuous at best.
People need to be cautious around people.
The vast majority of men do not “prey” on anything, including women.
Most of the replies you’ve received are trying to explain that saying “men” are what is wrong with “people” is a generalisation that is unhelpful and harms all men.
It’s true that the perp is a man, and it’s also true that most violence against women is perpetrated by men. However, that doesn’t mean there’s a causal link between being a man and assaulting women.
It’s much more likely that the addressable causes underlying this “man’s” actions are poverty, lack of mental health support, and cultural norms including but not limited to religion.
When you suggest that “men” are the cause of what happened to this athlete, it’s not surprising that men will be offended. To thereafter frame the obvious response as sexist is projection, frankly.
Not all of them, some are just idiots.
Australia checking in … I feel similarly about the attitude of doctors and the type of care I receive. I don’t have any amazing advice that you’re not already following, but I’ll regale you with my thoughts regardless…
About 18 months ago I developed a chronic health condition that I will need to manage for the rest of my life (hopefully several decades). In that time I’ve seen a myriad of medical professionals.
My first tip would simply be that if you’re not satisfied with a doctor or specialist, your only recourse it to arrange to see another instead. Sometimes the advice / treatment prescribed will vary significantly, sometimes they just have a less punchable face.
As regards GPs, I’ve come to categorise them thusly: those that just prescribe meds without any conversation, those that try to manipulate you into wanting the meds they want to prescribe, and those that will have a conversation with you about what meds you ought to take. Obviously this last category is the one you want.
Finally, I’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of simply staying on top of all the data about me. I have all my test results available on my phone, as well as medications, dates of treatments, contact details for specialists, et cetera. Also just understanding the available treatments.
I think that’s a bit reductive.
It’s fair enough to expect a large company to have a rep to attend court if they want to do business in your country.
If they refuse then it becomes a “rule of law” situation - even if it’s a dumb law, you can’t have a multinational disregard the court’s instructions.
The nutrition panel only captures a subset of important bioavailable nutrients.
For example, water is obviously a digestible nutrient, but is not represented there on.
My comment is a reference to the well known axiom that you can not provide evidence for a negative. It’s not possible to provide evidence that AGI is not possible, we must content ourselves with the lack of evidence that it is possible.
Not really.
Both mastodon.social and piefed.social are domain names that point to instances.
The last part of the domain name after the dot like .com or .social doesn’t really mean anything.
That’s just semantics.
Making a dark joke about a terrorist attack isn’t very nice.