Just correct me if I'm mistaken, but a quick research revealed that when a woman in Texas gets an abortion she is handed a life-long prison sentence and a fine of USD 10,000. A doctor who performs an abortion gets also a life in prison, looses his licence, and pays a fine of USD 100,000.
But a man poisoning a woman with abortion medication get 180 days in jail, no fine.
I'm not a legal expert, but that seems to have nothing to do with justice but rather with controlling women, right?
I don't think it's so much about controlling women and their sexuality as much as it is a man wants to ejaculate inside a woman without the consequences of producing a child.
It isn't about not dealing with the consequences, abortion would be the easiest solution in that case.
No it's simply that women usually have the ultimate say in whether a baby is kept, at least in modern western society. And that is women having too much power.
I'm mildly optimistic that this judgment can now be used as case law for all the prosecution efforts against women and doctors as a result of Texas' fucked up abortion law.
it's because the real problem is women having any amount of power. abortion that is forced on her is fine, because it establishes that women are subhuman and can have things forced upon them.
This is actually written in the Bible as the official Christian methodology for abortions. The man literally poisons his wife to induce it as a test of her loyalty, in numbers 5:11-31. Yes that’s right, abortion is sanctioned in the Bible exactly as Herring did it to his wife. I don’t know if this factored into the court ruling, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Yup. I'm planning on keeping my kids in the house until they're 100% able to afford life on their own, and I'm planning on not retiring until I'm kicked out of my job. Fuck this country and fuck capitalism.
I hear you and I 100% understand. Kids are not easy. And when you're not financially ready, they're almost impossible. Don't listen to that bullshit "you're never ready" or "you're ready when they're here" blah blah. They're fucking hard and if you don't have the money, don't have them. It'd only get 10 folds worse for you. I went through all of that myself. It wasn't fun at all. I wouldn't wish what I went through on my worst enemy.
Lobbying in the EU is not the same as lobbying in the US. In the EU, lobbying is simply being an advocate group that is consulted whenever issues in their domain arise, with everyone understanding their partiality.
Oh well that sounds a lot better. In fact better than letting old, out of touch politicians who understand nothing about the issue make all the decisions.
While I agree with the statement that lobbyists are not inherently evil, I will call this out as an overly optimistic statement.
We have cases like Ylva Johannson trying to enforce the use of AI detection algorithms for CSAM after being thoroughly consulted by Thorn, a company that sells such algorithms (who spent $24M on this). Meanwhile, she never met with digital rights lobbyists despite them repeatedly asking for a meeting.
But soon after the St Louis-based troop announced their plans, they received a fierce response from their parent chapter, Girl Scouts of eastern Missouri. The message was clear: Girl Scouts did not participate in political and partisan activities.
The response was surprising to Abuhamdeh, who recalled other Girl Scout troops organizing to help families in Ukraine after Russia invaded in February 2022. According to the Girl Scouts website, a troop in Westlake, Ohio collected medical supplies and pack first-aid kits to be distributed in Ukraine, and “also exchanged small gifts like friendship bracelets and cookies”.
Ukraine, our ally, was the victim, Russia attacked them. Palestine was the aggressor, they attacked Israel, our ally. Politically, it would be like holding a fundraiser for the axis in the last days of WW2. Was it the right call? Probably not but it's understandable. Many people would stay away from girl scouts if they appear to be taking the side of Islamic fundamentalists and intifada.
“Higher education must return to its essential foundations of academic integrity and the pursuit of knowledge instead of being corrupted by destructive ideologies,” Florida’s commissioner of education, Manny Diaz Jr, said. The actions, he added, would ensure taxpayer money won’t be spent on DEI and “radical indoctrination that promotes division in our society”.
This is coming from a commissioner of education? Wow I am glad I don't live in the US.
I agree. I fully support DEI programs. But what I don't understand is how some of these positions end up being filled by rabid lunatics that end up saying the most bizarre shit, that ends up fueling these kind of changes.
We need to fix the system, but a the people that enjoyed the actual benefits of the privilege are not the ones affected by the current changes. And the goal should be to lift all, and not push some down.
Well, it is a rather divisive ideology, simply as a matter of fact.
Here's New Jersey, not exactly a Republican stronghold:
Overall, 42% of employed New Jersey adults considered diversity among their peers “essential,” 29% said it was “important but not essential,” and 28% said “not essential.” While 64% of employed Democrats regarded it as “essential,” only 42% of employed independents and a mere 17% of employed Republicans echoed this sentiment; 52% of Republicans say it is “not important,” compared to 9% of Democrats.
I found another poll specifically about DEI programs:
A majority of workers (56%) say focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing; 28% say it is neither good nor bad, and 16% say it is a bad thing. Views on this vary along key demographic and partisan lines.
Do you support or oppose laws banning diversity, equity, and inclusion programs
from colleges and universities?
Support 39%
Oppose 50%
Neither support nor oppose 7%
Unsure 4%
So you do have a point. Apparently even the average Republican doesn't have strong negative feelings against DEI programs, with only 30% calling them a bad thing. In Florida, opposition to DEI is stronger than average, but even there more people oppose the ban than support it. I would still say that 30% to 40% opposition makes the issue relatively divisive, especially since the opposition is so concentrated in one political party. However, I admit that it apparently isn't as divisive as I thought it was before going through these polls more carefully.
(I'm not sure how to reconcile the results of these polls with the way Republicans actually vote.)
I think the devil is in the details. Most people support DEI as a concept; very few people believe diversity, as a concept, is bad. I'm personally supportive of DEI in general, but I have mixed feelings about it in practice.
My employer has a pretty broad and active program. They hold informational sessions hosted by the different DEI groups throughout the year. Those sessions provide visibility for the groups, but the content is pretty shallow. I assume it feels good to have those sessions for you if you belong to one of the groups though.
The actual things the DEI program effects are a mixed bag of results. Women and some racial minority groups have increased representation in the company since the groups were created. That's good. But if you're a white cishet male, you'll never encounter any of our recruiters. Recruiting works with the DEI groups to target their special-interest recruiting events. There aren't any inclusion groups that allow white cishet males, so we end up not going to any events they're allowed to attend. Of course, anyone can apply through public channels, but direct recruitment gets priority over web applicants. This effectively means we will only consider a white cishet male if there's nobody else. This structure would be wildly illegal if it were any other group that was excluded in that way, but instead we see that situation lauded as a good thing.
I don't have access to any career coaching or employee support groups because those things are all offered through DEI groups, and I'm not welcome to join any of the groups (I'm only allowed to attend virtual webinars as an ally). There are lots of outside of work team building events as well, but I'm not invited to those either.
I keep hearing that equity isn't a zero-sum game, but it sure feels like it is from where I'm sitting. I want to speak up and say I should have access to the same resources and benefits as everyone else instead of being excluded based on my race, gender, and orientation. But DEI programs have taught me that whites, males, and cishets take up too much air in the room and I should always yield to literally anyone else in the name of equity.
TL;DR DEI feels divisive when there is no inclusion group that includes you
The part where he calls diversity and inclusion a destructive ideology or radical indoctrination. I wouldn't want my education officials saying stuff like that.
You mean that you don't want to compare them, not that it can't be done.
US citizens outside of Florida have no impact on electing Florida's government officials. Federal law doesn't affect their elections because they have a state constitution. In many ways the EU is similar to the federal system in the US. Where do you think they got the idea?
He did not call it that. Don’t bent his words. And there are problems in American universities from both sides. When researchers in universities are forced to write essays how their physics or chemistry research advances diversity and inclusion, there is something wrong with that too.
Go down to the local foundling hospital and ask to sit with some of the wards of the state. The children born with birth defects so terrible that they require 24/7 nursing and will die before they turn two years old. They need compassionate volunteers with strong constitutions, because the situation is so depressing.
Parking company: "How much paper do you think we have?! We can't be printing it all in bloody Welsh! We'd go bankrupt!"
But seriously, on it's face this kinda comes off as some dude trying to get out of a ticket, but props to him for fighting for his heritage. There's no arena too small for this kind of exercise. Also, these clowns can't even bother to sue him properly. Didn't even show up? This latest attempt should be thrown out just on their lack of respect for him and the court system they're trying to abuse.
He's a language campaigner, so I'm sure he got the fine intentionally—knowing it would only be in English—specifically to make this point. Though he probably didn't expect it to take this long due to the other side being incredibly incompetent.
If it were another language, maybe it’d just be some guy trying to get out of a ticket; but my understanding (limited, as I’m an American) is that the Welsh have been fighting hard for a long time to preserve their language. So, good on him!
What it basically comes down to is there are several native languages in the United Kingdom - English, Welsh, Gaelic, Scots, Cornish and more - but only English is respected on the whole.
He's not even asking for every ticket to come in both languages, just to be sent one in Welsh when asked for. I think it should be a legal requirement to provide any document in any home language requested, personally.
There's no official language by law and English is de facto the official language for the whole country. There's a caveat though and it's that Wales made Welsh an official language in their part of the country, hence the ability for this man to ask for a ticket in Welsh and the possibility that the company will lose their case.
That seems like a good idea. If they really want to execute someone, make the official of the state shoot them on video. I'm guessing capital punishment would be almost zero within 10 years, because nobody wants to be seen as a cold-blooded killer, especially when they know that people could review the video.
Nah instead two elections cycles later a candidate will be elected, who will be running ad breaks and monetizing execution videos, all while parading patriotic bullshit.
This would backfire as you'd see people voting for right wingers more because it's "Cool and manly to kill people", you'd also get the foot in the door for legalized bloodsports.
Yes, there was a moment in very beginning about the duke carrying out executions personally and making his sons watch, because that's his responsibility.
Guilt for administering a death has been thought of before; that's part of the reason why there's a firing 'squad'. You have however many people with lethal rounds, and however many people with dummy/blank rounds, so nobody knows for sure whose bullets were live & killed him.
in texas, an abortion with the woman's consent is punishable by life in prison, but an abortion without the woman's consent only gets you six months. Once again, I'm forced to conclude that republicans are specifically against a woman's consent and that anything about "the right to life" is absolute bullshit.
Do you think that a doctor that attempted an abortion but the fetus survived would be treated any differently than a doctor that completed an abortion? It's the procedure that's criminalized, not the result.
There have been plenty of cases of attempted murder in which the criminal gets a lighter sentence because the victim is still alive. Don't be mad at me. Blame the stupid criminal justice system.
but this isn't attempted murder, it's a different crime. You're substituting your intuition about the law for what the law actually is. The law in Texas does not make abortion a type of murder, it makes performing an abortion a crime in and of itself regardless of whether the fetus dies. The text of the law is that it's a crime to "knowingly perform or induce an
abortion on a pregnant woman".
there's an “existential crisis” facing the office market, as the one-two punch of rising vacancy rates and declining property values squeeze building owners.
So the laws of supply and demand are working as it usual? I mean, that's what they tell us market rates are for, why should I care if some rich guys don't understand how the market works, that's their problem.
For conversions [to apartments] to start making sense financially, the government needs to provide a 20% cost subsidy
Oh, fuck you! You overextended yourself, don't see an easy way out, and now you want someone else to bail you out so you don't lose any money. The only way this should be allowed is if: the ground floor is reserved for a variety of mostly small shops, a certain percentage of which have to be locally owned and run, and maybe the second floor is small office space. The new apartments are mostly reserved for low-income people, and are rent-controlled. To get around the issue of the floors being so large that you either cluster apartments around the edge and have a big empty space in the center, or you have long thin narrow (and very unappealing) apartments, you go for the cluster around the edges approach, and turn the center into into a variety of things: maybe every floor has a laundry room, every third floor has some storage space for the tenants, every fifth floor has a gym, every few floors has a few community rooms where people can meet and play games or kids can hang out, with one or two floor's community rooms specifically set aside as quiet space for reading and studying, etc. And ffs, put in really good sound insulation between the floors, and between apartments.
"We overextended and now we have to sell at a loss! Help us, Obiden wan Joenobi, you're our only hope!"
Yeah fuck that. At least these fucks have a hard reset button if they fail. I bet most indebted people wish they could "realign" with little personal cost.
I'll take a 20% subsidy to offset my costs too, thanks.
If the government needs to provide a 20 percent subsidy, then I expect at least a 30 percent ownership stake in the project to be held by the government. At least, ideally any building that took advantage of the subsidy would have most of the control handed off to the local community.
The problem with office conversions is, essentially, not enough windows. Every bedroom needs a window, as does the main living space. Even if you make the bedrooms very narrow, there's just way too much space in the middle.
Convert the inside to retail, offices, community spaces, and storage, and add more staircases for easier movement between floors and you could get fully-enclosed communities. Live, work, and play all in the same building.
He'll, you could even build a school on one floor pretty easily; classrooms are a lot bigger than bedrooms, so you can keep windows in most rooms and make bright classrooms. I worked in a private school in an office tower and it worked great.
I'd really hate to live in a building like that. My friend was a manager at one and while it was super cool when I visited, it was also pretty loud and busy.
But they won't. They'll act like they're missing out on their extra bonus on top of their millions because everyone doing WFH owes them equity while they brag about how they're valuable risk takers.
Unfortunately it can be extremely difficult/costly to convert an office building into livable spaces. Taller apartment buildings are basically built around their water and utility infrastructure.
Instead of having a couple bathrooms per floor, you're going to have to install at least one for every tenant. The pumps that force the water to the top of the office building would have to be swapped for a much larger one that could handle the increase in volume.
You've described how much of the world works. It's almost as if the US has been living in an economic bubble for a long time and suburbs were never the answer.
Pretty sure they just mean that it's not as easy as just converting former office buildings into livable space, and that developers are not going to want to pay the cost when it can be cheaper to demolish the building and build a brand new apartment building vs renovating the old office building. IMO, fuck what developers think about spending the upfront cost, we need housing 20 years ago now and the suburbs suck; but pointing it out to capitalists isn't gonna get it done.
Pretty sure they just mean that it's not as easy as just converting former office buildings into livable space, and that developers are not going to want to pay the cost when it can be cheaper to demolish the building and build a brand new apartment building vs renovating the old office building.
Not only is it more expensive, but a lot of the time it's just not possible. Why would a developer add enough room in the utility columns to add enough extra space for enough piping to accommodate several times it's original projected water consumption?
Add in local ordinance such as the increased fire protections required for multi family homes and you'll begin to see some of the inherent problems people like to breeze over.
No, nowhere in the world do they regularly convert sky scraping office buildings into housing.
I wasn't saying it's costly or hard to build a tall residential building, just that the way the office and residential building are built are fundamentally different.
There’s quite a lot of interest - and action- inside the industry surrounding conversions. I’m on the structural side and have probably seen 3-4 articles in trade rags over the past quarter about strategies and opportunities in conversions. IT may not be feasible everywhere it for every budding, but the industry (including suppliers and designers) are interested enough that it’s part of the discussion on a regular basis.
Oh, I'm sure there's a whole bunch of talk about it. It's one of those Hail Mary ideas that would be easy to market if someone could make it profitable .
I could see it happen for older, not so tall buildings. I just have a hard time seeing someone turn office space in a glass sky scraper into up to code housing. Even ignoring the inherent engineering problems, just figuring out the fire safety for something like that would be maddening.
Why would the volume of water be much greater? Aren't those bathrooms made for an office full of people to use, shouldn't the amount of water going through the pipes be similar?
Housing I can see, but i’ve never really seen the appeal of vertical farms.
Even the cheapest possible high rise construction is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than some random patch of dirt. Your also going to have a problem using a lot of heavy machinery, which means a lot of unnecessary and very long hour hard labor. All of this to cut down on the energy used in transportation, but the energy needed to move the train car from the field to the city is tiny compared to even just harvesting and planting, much less growing things indoors or off season.
There are many potential economic benefits to vertical farms, but their primary appeal for many is to cut down on land usage to allow for more wildland to replace the farmland.
As far as I know vertical farms are always about growing crops not raising animals. Switching away from eating animals would already free enormous amounts of land for wilderness, without requiring that we stack farms for some reason.
Ok. Yes that is technically true, if everyone stopped eating meat it would also free up lots of agri land in theory. They arent competing ideas.
Eating meat made from crickets, from a non animal meat factory, etc are also possible ways for us to reduce land usage. None of that is really about vertical farms though, and none of that would address plant agri except for feed.
"Stacking farms 'for some reason'" is an interesting and disrespectful way to engage with my comment providing a reason to do exactly that. That doesn't give me a good indication that you're here to engage in good faith.
My point is that vertical agriculture implies a plant based diet. We could already switch to a plant based diet and save most of our agricultural land. Vertical farming basically means getting light from somewhere other than the sun, as the upper floors block the sunlight. So it doesn't really make sense, and won't likely save any land. I'm happy to be shown otherwise!
Vertical agriculture is conceptually useful if you consume any amount of plants, or things which eat plants. This is as it turns out, everyone, not just meat eaters
Businesses have to match the taxes that employees pay. If i make $50,000 a year and owe $10,000 in taxes, my employer also owes $10,000 too. So if my company is paying taxes on my wages, why are the CEO's wages tax deductible?
All wages (whether you're the janitor or CEO) reduce a company's profits, which means lower corporation tax. You are talking about payroll taxes, which are a different thing.
I want them to keep it alternating and nt stick to it.
Daylight savings time saves 366 lives a year from traffic accidents alone Coate and Markowitz which while isn't that much is still worth the inconvenience.
Also, 2015 paper from the Brookings Institute claims a 7% drop in crime, when they extended by 4 weeks, we saved 60 million dollars. If we account for indirect costs like those of murder, rape, we get 246 million saved (Popular Mechanics)
"transition periods in daylight saving time regulations are linked to a rise in total mortality and should be avoided in the interest of general well-being."
So, there's data supporting DST costing lives, saving lives, and not having any impact either way. I cherry-picked a few to illustrate the former, which paired with yours make for a more complete picture.
Overall, estimates on the lives lost side appear to be numerically higher; so taking ALL of it at face value, getting rid of DST would save more lives.
I'd vote to chop it if saving lives is your chief concern.
Interesting Global News
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago). Subscribe to start receiving updates.