So when are they deporting all the Israelis and their illegal businesses? Or do they only deport genocide victims?

If we blamed every low level individual idiot who falls for malware, we'd be here all day and the malware would still be there. How about we blame the people pushing malware to millions of idiots? Also the companies who can't even employ the most basic cybersecurity best practices to protect their own assets. It's not like they were a small startup that can't afford to.

There's a study out there that says most ADHD content online is BS. This would definitely qualify. Being a people pleaser is not related to ADHD in the slightest. However, I'd push back on saying you can overcome any personal flaw through one's own ability. Some people really just need medication to even start being capable of applying any tool they learn in therapy or otherwise.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Rape myths have absolutely no place in our courts and victims should never feel as though they are the ones on trial.

“Judges are already able to give directions to counter rape myths … we will also carefully consider the victims’ commissioner’s proposals as we continue to strengthen protections for victims.”

Siobhan Blake, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lead for rape and serious sexual offences, said: “The focus must be the actions of the perpetrator and not the behaviour of the victim.

“We know that there is no typical response to sexual assault and myths that victims should scream and fight back are outdated. Some people may freeze or feel unable to speak about it for months or even years, but this is not a barrier to justice.”

So this is what a government trying to combat rape culture looks like.

This just sounds like an overconfident naive man who got duped into being used by a murderer. He thought he was qualified to take this on because he watched Sherlock Holmes and Miss Maples, and he was growing bored of the book he was writing (which he ended up abandoning entirely).

There's just so many gaps in the narrative and jumping to conclusions on circumstancial evidence at best. I'll admit the investigation was not handled properly, but that is surprisingly extremely common. They never said what was wrong with the pathology evidence to dismiss it entirely when the body was already in rigor mortis when found making Robin's timeline extremely unlikely. The only counter evidence provided was his long time friend claiming he heard a female voice call out Robin at a later time, and an anonymous tip claiming a boastful perpetrator that could not be followed up on, oh and a pedophile step father that's long dead. He mentioned Diana wanting to go to the police shortly before the murder but left out explicit mention that there was any evidence it was about the CSA and not something else. The Horizon computer system scandal doesn't fully exonerate him either; at most it highlights that the motive may not have been unconvering fraud/embezzlement. Why did the author not pre-emptively shut down speculation of domestic abuse as is the most likely explanation for this kind of murder? He seems to completely ignore the possibility.

This reads to me like the dumber version of You Can See Everything rather than true investigative reporting. This author is, maybe unintentionally, presenting the most charitable version of events for Robin because he's worried about upsetting or challenging his friend too much. Where's the Amanda Seyfried character to push back here?

How mature to ruin everyone's Christmas dinner because they wanted to spend time with you. That's like the most stereotypical teenager move. You could just pretend you're sick and not go or ask hr for accommodations beforehand.

Like greeters were often people who couldn’t physically or mentally perform a full job

I really like that you point this out because a thriving society takes care of their vulnerable and disabled populations in this way. A lot of disabled people in the US want to work, but mostly due to disability asset caps along with the actual disability, they can't.

It's so sad how many of us are going through this now because of factors outside our control. You just have to mourn the life you thought you'd have and find happiness in whatever way you can.

I'm surprised it's only 10%. I remember a couple of years ago I worked on a team trying to build an AI tool that, as a feature, could cite sources. I was skeptical then because gemini couldn't reliably cite correct sources on a google search, so what made our team so confident the OpenAI api version could do that? I mean, it still can't because it doesn't know where the information is coming from, and I'm sure getting it to double and triple check its work to get it right leads to it getting stuck in cycles.

The point is you need to treat AI "facts" as if your trivia buddy told you a fun fact. It sounds right and you trust that they looked it up at some point, but they're confidently incorrect at least a couple of times a trivia night so you shouldn't put money on it without fact checking yourself.

Wow, rude👈 (I'm not ready for the truth😭)

I think this back and forth about what it means, by what I assume are well-educated people, goes to the argument that it is basically written in confusing lawyer jargon and not easily digestible to the average person.

You initially said "a pension fund to offset taxes." What I would take issue with there is using pension and endowment interchangeably when they're not at all interchangeable, and the use of the word "offset" when it's supposed to eliminate and replace, not simply offset, taxes (unless it becomes insolvent, in which case they would have to get voter approval to bring taxes back. Yikes!).

But I agree with your point that the taxpayers shouldn't be deciding this in the first place because even if it were written clearly, there's not enough information you can fit in the space to let anyone make an informed decision. You'd have to understand what an endowment is, what incentives have historically been created by them, and most importantly (what critics have been asking), where would the money be coming from?

My interpretation of where the money is coming from is bribes. That's a detail in the word "donations" I didn't get from the wall of text that is that amendment, but from further reading.

My main source was this article.

Have you ever heard of soft power? Countries like the US, China, and Russia, even Thailand from what I know, engage in these deliberate propaganda campaigns. It's like the only reason they keep the Olympics around when it's such a money drain. It's also why Hollywood has gotten so much funding from the US government over the decades.

The UAE doesn't have to sit in a room and explicitly plan it out when they can just pay hundreds of influencers to do the work for them. You're not meant to notice that it subtly normalizes and legitimizes the country in the world stage.