1,477 karma · joined June 22, 2024
I would too. It would be in the government's interest to chose an operator and lease out space, but only if it were done in the most fair manner possible. I have no clue about such matters, I confess, but I would not want to see the idea politicized; as in only certain people can apply, or preferences given to certain classes. Perhaps a little contentious in the short run, but in the long term it would be better.
And yes, alas, if it's Starbucks that has the best deal, then so be it. In fact, playing devil's advocate, what IF Starbucks said we'll give you 100% of our profits from this location on the sale of beverages?
Probably best that the library gets the money from leasing the space, and let's the local operator earn whatever they can.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-polic...
Changing words for watermarking .. I understand why it may do that .. but .. what an unfortunate choice of where to do it.
Also, it takes time. I've learned that faith comes from trust, which comes from time, and experience. The more I am around others, gaining experience with our personalities, we come to trust one another, and build faith in friendship.
I can't help but shake the feeling that the federal reserve is here for the wealthy, the bankers, and not for the rest of us, and anything they do is ultimately not for our benefit, but for theirs.
All that to say, I think IMO exercise can help improve general daily mood, but it did not really do anything for my overall depression.
The Secret Life of Groceries: The Dark Miracle of the American Supermarket by Benjamin Lorr, and
Grocery: The Buying and Selling of Food in America by Michael Ruhlman
Extremely insightful about how much it cost to run a grocery store, where profits go, who the food suppliers really are, etc. Very eyeopening.
"The importance of the move may be largely symbolic at this point, as it does not apply to generic medicines - the most commonly used medicines in the US."
“For women who aren’t considered high risk, if the test comes back negative, it’s wrong only about 3 times out of 10,000,” Lubarsky said.
Sounds like 3 wrongs are an acceptable level of risk for this CEO. It would be interesting to put radiologists up against AI to see which have better results, but I would still rather a human read my chart and then have AI give the second opinion, rather than the other way around.