Again, 202 is about opening other people's mail/messages, with the electronic subsection being about accessing their digital messages when you aren't supposed to. And section 206 wouldn't apply to Drag at all, since they aren't even an admin. As far as I can tell, there's nothing legally wrong with sharing "private" messages that are sent to you.
https://www.iso-ne.com/ Looking at my own region of New England, renewables are only at about 8% right now. And that includes burning wood, refuse, and landfill gas as renewable sources.
Capital gains are profits from the sale of assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, and antiques. Nine states (Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaiʻi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin) provide income tax deductions or preferential rates for all long-term capital gains income. Other states—such as Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Oklahoma—offer tax reductions for realized gains from certain assets located solely within state boundaries.[11] These tax subsidies disproportionately benefit high-income and high-wealth families and tend to worsen economic inequality across both economic and racial dimensions.
Oh man, if only the authors of the study had thought about capital gains taxes, then maybe the map above that's only using income to divide the population would have been better somehow.
No, masculinity being about resilience does not mean you just sit silently while people run towards you with axe and hammer. You can absolutely defend yourself and when cornered, attack when necessary. Masculine resilience does not mean you become this statue that remains so even if birds come and poop in the mouth. Eventually you will grab one bird by the neck.
Grabbing the bird by the neck would probably count as an abusive behavior, the second half of your definition of masculinity. You're very quick to compare whatever treatment you've received (I haven't really seen anything) to physical violence, which probably feeds into why a lot of people you interact with come off as so hostile to you and your beliefs.
Women have always been privileged in different ways than men have. It just so happens men focused on money (key form of capital) and ended up as being more advantageous. Men also have biological advantages that favour them over women.
It wasn't all that long ago that women gained the right to vote, so it should be pretty obvious that women had fewer privileges than men just 100 years ago. Time marches on, and things are more equal now, but there's still a measurable difference in pay by gender just for an example.
I was even being labelled (Jordan) Petersonian by some person despite insisting I have never pushed his conservative talking points or wanted to.
I try not to listen to Jordan Peterson, but if you're saying things in line with his general philosophy, it doesn't really matter whether or not you want to be pushing his talking points or if you even know you're doing it. I can't say for sure you are, but I would generally associate this kind of "women are actually more privileged then men" talk as at least similar.
I have encountered radical feminists wanting genocide of men, men being called male (animal implication), hand signs for dick size, feminists saying “all men bad/die” and “men are not our responsibility”, feminists faking boys locker room chats to gain online attention and harass men, and so on, so I have zero faith in anyone, leftists or rightists.
You meet people that say dumb and hurtful things all the time. My own grandfather once told me that immigrants dying while trying to cross the border was a good thing because it would send a message to others that they aren't welcome and they shouldn't try to come. But that doesn't mean you always need to take them seriously and apply the absolute worst things you've heard to a larger group of (mostly unrelated) people. But also, are these "locker room chats" the harmless kind, or the fantasizing/reminiscing about sexual assault kind?
It's a little different. The Upside Down in Stranger Things is a kind of alternate dimension, whereas in the movies Upside Down and Patema Inverted it's that gravity is reversed for some people.
None of those benefits came close to the cost of the program
How do you measure the cost-to-benefit of longer maternity leave? Or higher high school graduation rates? Not everything the government does needs to directly make a profit. Just look at roads for an obvious example of that.
once initiated productively decreased. Likely would have even decreased further but people knew the free money would eventually end.
There was only about a 13% decrease in hours worked for the entire family on average, and most of that was women going back to work after a pregnancy later and teenagers not working (probably so they could keep going to school).
How do you pay for a program when the local area taxes don’t cover it particularly when the tax income actually decreases once instituted?
It's not about Canada, but you can always find a way to pay for things if you really want to, even if they're objectively bad for tax income.
From the source of link 3:
Figure 17 Primary Reasons for Leaving Last Housing, All Participants
- Lost or reduced income: 12%
- Conflict among residents: 9%
- Didn't want to impose/wanted own space: 7%
- Conflict with property owner: 7%
- Someone else became sick, disabled, or died: 6%
- Building was sold or foreclosed: 6%
- Violence or abuse in the household: 5%
- Breakup between residents: 4%
- Participant's substance use: 4%
- Other needed more space: 4%
and also:
To understand what participants believed may have prevented their homelessness, we asked them to engage in a thought experiment about the likelihood that their homelessness could have been prevented had they received financial intervention. We provided all participants with three different scenarios and asked them whether each intervention would have prevented their becoming homeless for at least two years.29 The interventions were: (1) a monthly rental subsidy worth $300-$500; (2) a one-time payment of $5,000 to $10,000; or, (3) a voucher that limits rent contribution to 30% of their income (such as a Housing Choice Voucher).
FIGURE 21 Participant Report of Effect of Hypothetical Homelessness Prevention Interventions by Family Structure
All
- $300-$500/month shallow subsidy: 70%
- $5,000-$10,000 one-time payment: 82%
- Housing voucher: 90%
So while "not enough money" might not have been the most common cause for people being homeless, the vast majority of people think having more money or cheaper housing would have prevented them from becoming homeless.
Since when has youtube had text/image posts? How do you even get to them? Are they a mobile only feature?
The NCBI study actually supports my claim - the outdoor areas show NO particulate matter - thats what’s actually harmful to your health.
Among the different types of outdoor areas, the highest median outdoor SHS levels (nicotine: 4.23 µg/m3, PM2.5: 43.64 µg/m3) were found in the semi-closed outdoor areas of venues where indoor smoking was banned.
You can't expect me to take you seriously if you're just going to lie about what the page says. I'll admit it might not be the best page to prove my point, but it does still show particulate matter exists in noticeable amounts outside. Also, why are you trying to say that nicotine has no harmful effects?
You're just making stuff up.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t giving examples of things that should be allowed or banned.
Living in a tolerant society means that we need to be willing to deal with these little inconveniences in our lives. One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning
As long as it’s not a direct risk to health (e.g. smoking indoors) and not extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down) people should be able to do what they want to.
There are plenty of studies which show that a lack of sleep leads to significant health issues.
You gave an example of something that should be allowed (kids being loud), described that same thing as something that shouldn't be allowed (people being loud), and then justified why it shouldn't be allowed (sleep is important).
Alright, but why is it okay for you to decide that some noise is okay, but Ronon Dex can't decide that the air pollution isn't? Why do you get to make that decision for them, and just say "you have to deal with some problems in a tolerant society"?
For vehicle exhaust, we’re basically already solving the problem by moving away from ICE vehicles, so I don’t see the reason in arguing about it.
Because there's more than one way of generating air pollution and some would argue that the transition isn't happening fast enough, or even that transitioning to electric cars isn't really a solution.
The Kickstarter page puts it at 450g, which seems to be fairly good compared to the first tire I googled's ~600g.
ltxrtquq
joined 2 years ago
From the steam page