Yeah, I think this is the most reasonable approach. Everyone else is suggesting that falling on your sword is the first line of defense, and it really shouldn’t be.

If you are the attorney general, and the president asks you to fire someone prosecuting him, sure, resign.

If you are just some person trying to get by, shooting yourself in the foot isn’t going to help anyone. If you refuse to do a job, and they just hire someone else to do it, you’ve only really lost a lot at the cost of a small moral victory immediately rendered nil.

Not to get too utilitarian, but the ultimate goal should be to have the best outcome for everyone, not to just make the first decision that seems to be right.

There’s a saying about fascism “Do not obey in advance”, and the idea is that during the rise of fascism, the fascists don’t actually have to make people do what they want. Lots of people comply with their goals well before being forced to. We are seeing many companies eliminating DEI objectives because it’s what the fascists want, even though they don’t have to.

This could be one of those situations where a frank conversation with the project lead to see if that’s what’s happening because there is a chance to convince them not to obey in advance. It could also be that the training is going for federal agencies that have been “legally” required to eliminate “gender” from any training materials.

I think it would be foolish to turn down the job without at least establishing that.

The district as a whole voted republican, but the attendees are just whoever showed up to the town hall to air grievances, which sounds like it was not republicans.

It’s not really confusing. His whole strategy, as we saw during his first term, is to do and say so much outrageous stuff that no particular scandal can stick with him. He also thinks being a bully is being a good businessman.

I doubt he would actually want to annex anywhere, but it’s easy ragebait that he can keep bringing up to keep news on that and off of his crimes.

For a disease to be prevented from spreading, you need a certain percentage of people to be immune. It’s different from disease to disease and also depends on the vaccine itself. Some diseases like Covid can still be spread to people who are vaccinated (though obviously the worst of the symptoms are mitigated).

For the sake of example, let’s say you need 90% immunity for a disease to not spread. Maybe 5% of the population cannot be vaccinated due to immune conditions, being too young, etc. That gives 5% of wiggle room.

Then there are acolytes of the fraudster, Andrew Wakefield, who faked data to get a flashy headline to get published in a prestigious journal. That includes RFK jr., Jenny Mccarthy, mayim bialik, etc. Clinging to their views for so long makes them unable to change them even if you show them proof that they are wrong. That might be another 1% of people.

There are a very small percentage of people who shun vaccines for lets say “true” religious reasons. Most of the people who try to claim religious reasoning for refusing vaccines are members of religions that are completely fine with vaccines. They are usually just really stupid people who are scared of needles and/or don’t think it’s that big of a deal with modern medicine. That’s probably another 1% of people.

Then there are people that are homeless or otherwise outside of the system. Vaccines are one of the most cost effective methods to improve health of a country, so despite the nightmare that is our healthcare system, you typically should never have to pay for a vaccine. It may be a bit more work than someone who is homeless and/or has substance abuse or mental health problems can prioritize. That might be another 1%.

All together, that would put us at 92%, above the threshold for a widespread epidemic, but all of those categories of people who don’t get vaccinated tend to be in communities, and so we can have outbreaks in those communities.

They weren’t intentionally infected, they were just deliberately not given the cure. It doesn’t make a difference at the end of the day, but it is important to distinguish because that is probably part of how those involved in the study justified their actions.

E.g.,

“I didn’t give them the disease, so I’m not responsible for what happens to them”

I haven’t read the exact statutes, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Some compounds, like phosphates and nitrates, are well studied, and so experts can put limits in place that they know will result in good outcomes. Unfortunately, there are an infinite number of potential contaminates someone could dump into a body of water, so for anything less well studied, it’s really hard to make limits. The EPA apparently just set a backstop that said something along the lines of “whatever you put in the water has to still result in good water quality”.

Now that the Supreme Court has shut that down, a polluter can put anything in the water that isn’t specifically disallowed. For a (fake) example, maybe Forever Chemical x2357-A is shown to hurt wildlife at concentrations over 2 parts per billion (after lots of expensive, taxpayer funded research), so the EPA rules that they have to keep it below 2 ppb. The company could adjust their process so their waste is Forever Chemical x2357-B instead, and they can release as much as they want.

The EPA basically just gets forced to play whack-a-mole spending lots of money to come up with specific rules to the point that they can’t actually do their jobs.

Social media gets more engagement (and therefore more ad money) from people who are upset, so it intentionally shows you stuff that’s bad/stuff to complain about.

Also, it’s important to complain about stuff. Not too much, but definitely some. If people never complained about 16 hour workdays in poor working conditions, we’d still be doing that.

there’s tons of mechanisms to stop that from happening

There are tons of such mechanisms in the United States as well. Unfortunately the mechanisms essentially boil down to laws, policies, and norms. Doing an illegal action does not pull a lever that deposits you in jail. The whole system relies on the people in power choosing to do the right thing. That’s going to be a potential issue in any country with centralized power.

The most crucial part of the process is that you and i will be the ones paying for the energy used for carbon capture, but the fossil fuel companies will be the ones profiting from selling the energy.

Oftentimes, yes. Mine has a series of little rooms. They are often used by teens working on homework together.

I’m just now learning that “hollywood hills” is an officially delineated neighborhood, including some regular-people housing that’s not actually in the hills. Granted, I think the fire was up in the hills, though it was completely contained.

From the Hollywood hills? To their second or third houses

In addition to what others said, they likely have different percentages of livestock. Beef vs. Dairy vs. Sheep, etc

It depends on the freezer. Some are “garage rated”, so they are designed to operate in a greater temperature range, while normally, they should only be used at room temp (plus and minus reasonable swings). Check your manual to see if it gives an operating range. I suspect that the more important factor is when it’s too hot outside for the level of insulation and compressor to keep up with, but too cold could be a problem

And they don’t seem to wear sunscreen

Amtrak actually legally has right of way over freight, it’s just that the freight companies break the law, and no one does anything about it. https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/HostRailroadReports/mythbusters-enforcing-amtraks-legal-right-to-preference.pdf

In case people think you are joking, I want to clarify that you are not joking. Amish, and similar groups like some Mennonites, absolutely vacation by train

They want to merge with Albertsons, who owns the other half of grocery stores: Acme, Safeway, jewel osco, and a bunch more.

Cigna doctors spend an average of 1.2 seconds per case. Their whole system is to deny everything right off the bat, and then they only have to potentially pay out for patients who have the resources to appeal.

I don’t understand why people like Facebook marketplace. It’s so transparently a way for them to just gather more shopping habits data on you, and it’s too easy for scammers to use. They act like having an account somehow makes it harder to scam.

I would much rather support the website run by a skeleton crew that has no unnecessary features than get a few bucks more on FB marketplace. If I’m selling something that I’ve used, it’s cause I want to get rid of it, anyway.