Does divorce by itself even lower the birthrate though? Intuitively, one might suspect that a couple that were no longer interested in eachother probably isn’t having many children, compared to if those people were to pair off again with new partners?
You can find plenty of weird furry fetish art on the fediverse too if you find the right instances, that’s just an internet thing.
To be fair, while I seriously suspect Trump’s stance towards Gaza will probably be worse than Kamala’s would have been, He isnt exactly in office yet, so his fault in this is at most limited to Israel anticipating that he probably wont do anything when he is. Had Kamala won, what is happening today would likely be largely the same.
The whole “either you hate the Palestinians or you hate the Jews” narrative that pops up whenever Israel does something wrong is part of the problem. The government of Israel uses its demographics as something of a shield from criticism, by stating that it is the Jewish state, and thus that to accuse them of wrongdoing is to be antisemitic. But it is not so; not everyone who is Jewish agrees with or desires what Israel is doing, they cant, no matter how many they might bring on board, because it is an ethnic and religious identity that includes some, like children, who aren’t even able to understand and agree to it. The actions of Israel are not the actions of Jewish people as a whole, and they never will be, because ethnic groups simply do not work that way. If anyone is being antisemitic here, it is the Israeli state itself, for attempting to tie their very real atrocities to Jewish people in order to coerce people into ignoring them. Its like the rhetorical equivalent of a criminal taking a hostage in order to deter arrest.
If the holy wine (I forget the proper term for it) is supposed to be the blood of Jesus, does that imply that if you concentrate that wine and then run an engine off it, you have a Jesus fueled car?
Forget that, what powers them? Something that can be read with a close by scanner makes some since since I figure you could induce a current in one, but the kind you sometimes see in movies that constantly sends out a signal that some satellite can clearly track anywhere in the world, and do so for days, weeks, months or longer, would need one heck of a battery I’d imagine? And in a very small space too
I keep my cat food bags inside an old pet carrier; its already designed for a cat to be unable to break through easily, and seeing as they associate it with the vet, they dont really want to go in there.
from the sound of it, no, the article suggests that someone probably commanded them to fire back in the 70s while the thing still worked, and its just unclear when exactly this was and who did it.
Would it really be (serious question, as I dont know a whole lot about legal matters)? My limited understanding was that perjury is lying under oath, and sarcasm, while it does involve saying untrue statements, isnt considered lying in everyday speech because what it actually communicates is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words. Since laws deal with humans and not computers, my assumption would be that it probably works in such a way as to depend on what message a person is actually communicating rather than the precise syntax by which they communicate it?
Because having a revolver or a rifle or something is going to really do anything if the government comes after you personally.
Any actual resistance movement capable of achieving much is going to find a way to arm itself regardless of if the country theyre from allowed guns during peacetime or not, they seem to in other countries that such things have formed in after all. Could be through illicit purchases from elsewhere, or homemade weapons, or theft, or whatever else, it always seems to happen.
In an election with stakes like this one though, doesnt maximizing their chances for a win also serve that? Like, being rich offers you some protection from the law, especially in a corrupt regime, but when the other side is an actual authoritarian, half-assing it so that they win while also being publicly against them is dangerous to one’s personal safety. Even rich people dont tend to get away with being against authoritarians, when they are in charge. If all you care about is power and influence, and you dont actually have any values beyond that, and one side is an authoritarian, then being on their side serves your interest, and being put in power to stop them serves your interest, but publicly failing to stop them puts a target on your back and gives you no power and influence by which to ward it off.
I mean, I feel like it is quite fair to blame the people who voted for Trump for Harris’s loss tbh. I don’t really buy the "the dems would win if they didn’t just refuse to try to win over conservatives and instead promised to go all-in on progressive policy that I’ve seen lately. I wish we got more progressive policy too, but it’s not like they don’t have any idea what people want, they have whole teams of people whose job it is to figure out that kind of thing. If promising some more progressive policy was a clear winner, why wouldn’t they do it? The answer I generally see implied or stated is that the dem establishment doesn’t want that policy, but that isn’t really an adequate explanation, because politicians are perfectly familiar with dishonesty. If supporting some progressive policy they didn’t like would win them power, they’d just promise it and then just not do that thing upon getting elected. It’s happened for state and congressional races before, so it’s not like that’s never been thought of.
I don’t think Harris’s loss is down to refusing to say the right words to inspire her base or anything like that, it’s down to the fact that, somehow, Trump is very good at inspiring his. She gave it a decent shot, but it’s very hard to win an election against a massive cult of personality. He, and the people that support him, are the problem here.
well no, there just arent any wind turbines as far as I remember. No solar either
I mean, theres geothermal
Satisfactory is a weird game where coal and oil are renewable, but trees, as far as I’m aware, are not.
Back when computers were nowhere near capable of teaching kids, one can handwave away issues with the tech by saying “when the tech is ready to do this, it will be great” essentially. When the tech is at the point where it can sort of do something, but not do it well, one instead imagines how badly things might go if one tried the notion right now instead of at whatever point in the future the technology is good enough to actually do a good job.
I mean, It has partially worked, information is more accessible than it would be if you had to go find a library and search through a ton of book that may or may not even have what youre looking for, or had to try to find someone who knew something or had some skill that you wanted to learn. And it has brought together people across distance, consider the number of online communities and subcultures whos members live in far-removed places, some of whom might be in fairly small towns or rural areas that just wouldnt have enough people of a particular interest to even have a branch of that community there. And it does also reduce the monopoly on dissemination of news and information that traditional media outlets and governments used to share. Its just, the predictions didnt also take into account that it would increase the ease of spreading false information either, or that not all debates have an answer that is obvious to everyone if only they are presented certain info, or that people wont want to talk to everyone and will instead choose to talk to those they find commonality with even given the means to talk to people they dont.
I always assumed that it was supposed to be ambiguous between them for humor purposes