

Southern baptists were pro-choice until the rise of the “moral majority” required southern baptists to fall in line with the catholic church on abortion to create the supply side Jesus we know today.
Southern baptists were pro-choice until the rise of the “moral majority” required southern baptists to fall in line with the catholic church on abortion to create the supply side Jesus we know today.
It’s such an easy thing to predict happening, too. If you did it perfectly, it would, at best, maintain an unstable equilibrium and just keep the same output quality.
My front loading clothes washer. It frequently doesn’t drain right. If you create a fault tree on what causes that, you can have:
The pump can clearly be heard running when the water levels are too high, so I know the sensor, sensor hose, controls, check valve, and pump are all functioning. Sometimes, the pump runs for way longer than you’d think necessary, with only a small trickle of water coming out little bit by bit. This indicates to me that there is a clog upstream from the pump. Multiple times, I have squeezed myself back behind the washer to take the back off and access the filter (which should be accessible from the front). I’ve found no clog there. Ive taken out the heating element to check for clogs around it, and found nothing there. Ive shown a bright light from inside the drum to highlight any potential clogs between it and the drum, and seen nothing there. Despite all of that, the problem remains, and when I manually spin the drum with nothing inside, I can hear what sounds like stuff moving around inside.
I assume it must be ghosts or something at this point.
For me, the “power burner” is so weak it can’t bring a pot of water to boil or properly saute anything. Everything online says that it must be because the gas outlets are dirty, but they are spotless.
One thing to keep in mind with a lot of responses is often when someone says “we didn’t learn about x in high school”, what they should be saying is “I didn’t learn about x in high school”. I’ve certainly heard former classmates claiming not to have learned something even though they were sitting next to me when I learned it.
When i was a preteen, we learned about WW2, mainly from a US perspective, and had a fairly large focus on the holocaust, including a visit to a holocaust museum.
As a teen, I had a class on specifically European history. In there, we learned about lot more about the rise of the nazis (though not much on Italian fascists).
Here’s the tl;dr on what I remember learning about then:
WWI ended with the treaty of Versailles which was not a realistic, sustainable peace. We learned about the economic trouble like hyperinflation. We learned about the beer hall putsch, and that it was effectively unpunished. We learned that Hitler then sought power through legal means by allying with a broad range of groups unhappy with the current government. As he rose to power, various elements were purged from the government. Concurrently, political violence from the stormtroopers suppressed minorities and other enemies from organizing against them. This culminated in Hitler being elected chancellor, and then the enabling act gave him ultimate power. In the night of the long knives, all the allied elements in the party were purged. After that was kristallnacht, the remilitarization of the rhineland, annexation of Austria and the sudetenland, and then finally the invasion of Poland.
The UK largely doesn’t fluoridate, so this is one of the (few) areas where the US actually does better than the UK. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country
The UK does generally have better tooth health in the grand scheme of things, but it’s actually pretty close, and the US is still really high on the list.
https://www.yongeeglintondental.com/blog/healthy-primary-teeth/
Without checking, I suspect the US’s slightly higher cavity rate is more down to sugar consumption than received dental care.
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
pH doesn’t necessarily tell the right story if you are concerned about acidity for your teeth, GI tract, or taste. Something like distilled water will turn acidic with a pH of 5.8 due to co2 absorption. There’s barely any “acid” there, though, it just doesn’t have any buffering capability compared to water with some dissolved solids in it (like tap water). What really matters is what they call “titratable acidity”.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-45776-5_22