comrh

That's not really how architecture works. There is a client supplied budget and site that multiple architecture firms submit proposals for. Suggesting a needlessly large and expensive building will do nothing but leave you without any work.

It makes more sense when you stop and think that there are no single group of "internet police" and that in reality it's millions of people with their ethics, personal views and natural inability to rank risk.

There's a huge amount of research done by actual architects on what makes a building "healthy" for human occupation. https://www.wellcertified.com/

That's natural selection

I agree, I know it's a high bar but doesn't this fit the purpose of libel laws?

"Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements: the plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault."

Seems to fit all of these. I imagine there is some protection because these words are coming from a PAC but the governor has said the same stuff in news conferences.

Blood work too, let me just test my own cholesterol please.

Very cool. At first I assumed it would show you what else is swimming beneath you... something I think might be best left unknown.

Humans rank 3rd on even their own planet, behind mice and dolphins. So long and thanks for all the fish!

Put every company under scrutiny, no justification needed.

What about Germany, UK, Italy...

Iirc aspartame hasn't been shown to increase insulin release

I can't find the article now but the developer who wrote these scripts said they were a singular effort from years ago before security was taken over by a more formal development team.

Reagan did in 1981

Murder rate isn't the whole story. Check out the suicide rate, how gun ownership affects a successful attempt and who is killing themselves in the US.

It's one of the two things every therapist will tell you that can force them to break the confidentiality. That it can take away your freedom, get you institutionalized, remove your ability to make your own medical decisions.

It's important to take ideations seriously but as someone who struggled with that at points in my life I never felt completely safe about discuss it.

Not completely equal but youtube did block "Innocence of Muslims" in multiple countries.

I think putting the opposition party on the record on this issue is part of the strategy because it is seen as broadly popular.

Newspapers have been a thing for hundreds of years

A virus allowed to spread will mutate.

In Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars the first settlements on Mars are underground and windowless to protect from radiation iirc.

But their videos are still online, they just can't make ad money from them?

There are links at the bottom under References if you're interested in learning more about the context. Tim Poole and Project Veritas videos aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Their wikipedia has a long list of incidents that I won't relist but it's not a straw man to discuss the credibility of a source.

A bias source with an axe to grind and a history of deceptive editing

This naively assumes the person has a choice of other opportunities and that the those other jobs aren't also underpaid.

And they knew about the issue for over 5 years...

I suggesting we give funds to people who raise children, who are traditionally women, because they preform a very important role in society without any financial compensation. And the article suggests this can (or has) lead to worse gender imbalances. It is certainly a job and rewarding it wouldn't be a "handout".

The quote I even referenced included "and other caregivers". This isn't "let's just pay women cause they're women" even if people want to get all up in arms about that and make a strawman. I'm thinking you didn't even bother to read the article.

I don't see how you get all that at all. How are they suggesting women are disabled? They suggest women do a lot of work valuable to society but not historically paid and not only paying women but both sexes would help breaking out of traditional work roles.

"The feminist argument for a U.B.I. is that it’s a way to reimburse mothers and other caregivers for the heavy lifting they now do free of charge. "

Also why isn't the post the title of the article? So clickbaity now.

He's saying it would help poverty (I think?). I think it would help income inequality as well, not hurt it as he suggests.