>As for the second question, the effect holds even when controlling for all sorts of things, like adoptions, location, socioeconomic status, etc.
Please post a source for your claim.
200 karma · joined September 26, 2021
Please post a source for your claim.
I find it unsurprising that any country 'looks a lot different' if you compare internal and external media, the question is accuracy and truthfulness. I ask again, please show me any external news source that is even remotely competitive in these areas with the Australian media.
You double down while answering none of my questions and still have not even explained HOW it 'looks different'.
By definition you are speaking https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nonsense
Stupidest thing I've ever heard. There is no 'from the inside' in Australia, what media could you possibly have accessed before that you cannot now? Even more, what media external to Australia provides a better or more accurate insight about Australia than the Australian media?
Of course Murdoch's a prick, he always has been, he also does not have total control of the media in any way. To make a statement that implies there is some type of censorship or barrier between Aussies and access to the truth is a complete fabrication.
Smallpox US: https://daily.jstor.org/how-commonly-was-smallpox-used-as-a-...
Smallpox(Or Other) in Australia: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/w...
CIA and Crack. https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/...
Australian Colonialists paid Indigenous workers with alcohol and tobacco. https://cspm.csyw.qld.gov.au/practice-kits/alcohol-and-other...
WARNING: KINDA A RAMBLE, STOP READING HERE IF BORED EASILY.
I've also played a lot of Magic the Gathering, which of course has hidden information and a hybrid fixed start. Both players have the same number of cards in their hand and on the field[1], but will almost certainly have different cards to each other even in Deck X vs Deck X mirror match ups.
In competitive MtG with a best-of-3 system, there can be a sense felt by the players that the die roll for Game-1-Turn-1 has a disproportionate effect on the match. Despite the roll giving you the choice of first or second turns, it is decidedly unusual for players to win the roll and choose to go second (even though the player who goes first skips their first card draw).
For the sake of the argument, if we assume going second definitively has lower chance of victory then the players perceptions can become frustrated and this can effect their desire to replay the game.
Because the loser of Game 1 selects who goes first in Game 2, and will likely pick themselves, and the winner of Game 1 is more likely to have won the Game-1-Turn-1 dice roll.
We get an outcome in which beating your opponent in Game 1 cascades, because your opponent will choose to go first in the 2nd game and either win returning the turn 1 advantage to you for the tiebreaker G3 or lose and the match concludes. Because Game 1 has disproportionate significance AND is the only game where luck decides who goes first AND is chronologically the the first to occur, I have observed (and felt) a kind of stewing frustration at 'playing out' the rest of some matches after losing the die roll and then having a poor early game 1.
I believe a this is mostly concerns players emotions and perceptions about 'inherent' advantages, which is why I've talked about it as a factor of replayability rather than just strategy.
[1]In a typical circumstance, some cards or deck types can alter the initial game state of the board or hand.
At the time of my writing, the user had two comments in this thread, one about cleaning practices and traditional herbs (that almost no one took issue with).
>In response to someone claiming that there were (like in medieval Europe, the topic of this post) many poor people in India in the same time period:
That is not at all what was claimed by that comment.
"No. You are the peasant. No lands for you, you aren't a lord or lady, you're a peon like 99.999% of people. Almost no middle class, and you aren't upper! You're lower class." is an ignorant statement.
>No one said India was not "self-sufficient", we're talking about peasants in those times, having a low quality of life.
You don't dictate what 'we are talking about'.
What you seem to struggle to comprehend is the linearity of time. When Kumavvr made their first and second comments, the topic was about medieval bathing. Now it has changed as the conversation developed yet you think the comments made before the topic changed are expected to also cover the topic which did not exist at the time of their writing.
>I appreciated it too - and still do - just perhaps more so before reading some of the others.
I think we are on the same page.
Things I learned from the original comment that I feel extremely comfortable believing:
1. Indian cleaning customs that were prevalent until recently. 2. Two traditional herbs I had never heard of before. 3. The practice of oiling and massaging with sesame seed oil and the greengram flour practice too.
You really think this is the reason and not the extraordinary removal of income taxes for companies and shares?
My issue is the incredibly broad statements about the political situation in Australia. Variations of this became commonplace during COVID lockdowns (which the overwhelming majority of Australians supported) and always seems to come up in relation to firearm regulation discussion. Australia has many many many problems, but to say it is not a liberal democracy is just false.
While I'm hardly impressed with this action from NSW State government, it does not represent Australia as an entirety.
Further, while unusual and new, these are bail conditions. I challenge you to find a US state that does not engage in bail conditions similarly draconian.
This is like seeing NYC or Cali Gun restrictions and saying the US isn't a liberal democracy because of them.
Has the US ever violated one of its citizens 'innate rights'? Constantly, there are thousands of professional constitutional lawyers and government officials arguing over the interpretation of that document and the precedents set by historic interpretations. Ie, your government is actively in the process of deciding how the legal system interacts with the citizens and the constitution, which is definitively your government giving you the rights. See, every 2A Supreme Court battle ever.
I think it is interesting that you so quickly recognise that the Mayor would have an ulterior motive to shift blame and/or responsibility yet seem unwilling to engage in the possibility that Walgreens would do the same for similar reasons.
I've read your article and it doesn't actually provide evidence that supports your claim (that those additional costs related to theft are what drove the closure), it just says that Walgreens cited theft as their reason for closing the store. The article even includes a quote from the Mayor contradictory to your point, who suggests Walgreens may have had other reasons for the closure.
“When a place is not generating revenue and when they’re saturated – Walgreens has a lot of Walgreens locations all over the city – I do think there are other factors that come into play,"
Not sure I follow... this would only be true if shoplifting losses exceeded profits which seems remarkably unlikely to be the case.
I think its self evident why that is a poor approach to understanding anything other than your own opinion so I wont bother explaining why to you, I don't think you'd care.
Please provide evidence that less than half of caloric intake for hunter gatherers came from meat instead of making additional claims without reference.
I'm out of variations but if you make a claim post a source. The previous commenter has been downvoted for (rightfully) asking for evidence to accompany its claims, you double down on providing no evidence and making even larger claims.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but if you make a claim and don't provide evidence you have presented a non-argument.
If you are going to make a claim about the overwhelming majority of anything it should come with a source.
You have made no points worth addressing and contributed nothing to the conversation.
You have added nothing to the conversation.
Also in what way would this ever be at all related to the context of judging the American nation as anything? The article is about a robot is Moscow and the comment I replied to is discussing if Russian subcultures or culture can seem Cartoonish.
Quit inventing battles to lose.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ_PiXLVaJ8 (~45mins)
The second video is more serious but also rather interesting (clips from it became very popular at the beginning of the Russian invasion into Ukraine). It is a lecture from a Finnish University Professor whom spent most of his career in Intelligence specializing in Russian relations and now teaches intelligence and security. He talks extensively about the corruption hierarchies in Russia as well as Putin and Propaganda, well worth a watch (and more recent videos have been released since found on the same channel).
2. https://youtu.be/kF9KretXqJw (~60mins)
Operating under the assumption that the video isn't misrepresenting the cultural aspects of Russia I think we would both be surprised at how "cartoonish" things can be.