The fact that this research paper is classifying all such attributes as negative without justification is inappropriate. It's not scientific - it's not the science that this paper is doing.
1,043 karma · joined February 22, 2020
Saying only 'impairment' implies that all attributes associated with autism are negative compared to some mythical baseline, and creates a circular definition which stigmatises autistic people.
It also benefits the contributor to know what is expected of them. If you know that your contribution will be properly considered when it meets the outlined expectation, then it is easier to put in the effort to contribute.
That seems really wrong.
There are plenty of soft barriers to progress for gay men.
Reinvigorating your old work for publication, once you have a commercially viable avenue to promote it, is pretty average capitalism.
Plenty of work that is politically awkward is published under a strict pseudonym. This wasn't - and the author's position is that it was their choice not to publish.
His work doesn't appear to have been desk-drawered or self-censored.
Your original suggestion of regulation is politics. It's a political decision. When you say "the UK should fight this", you mean: "UK politicians should actively decide to act".
MasterCard making this move forces the UK government to show their hand - and it's not that MasterCard has made this decision without that in mind. It indicates that MasterCard thinks* there's a good chance UK government won't do anything.
(*or knows - they spend plenty on lobbying and will have spoken directly to decision-makers)
Those EU businesses that continue to sell to the UK will presumably already be working out an uplift to UK customer prices anyway - being denominated in a different currency makes this easy enough to do (it's impossible to identify consumer surcharges if you just list the prices in a different currency).
Since the UK is now isolated (and has spent its goodwill in the EU), MasterCard may reasonably believe they have power enough to do this.
Will the UK government regulate this? A government which is scarcely managing its current responsibilities.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/companies-to-receive-3-mo...
My problem with all such tracking is - what happens to your motivation when the streak breaks?
In other words, you learn and re-enforce each others' common mistakes, misconceptions, mistranslated idioms, and ambiguities in the language that native speakers find instantly jarring. This worsens if the teacher is non-native: I wouldn't place much value in such a class.
I definitely think it's important that you teach your native language/that you learn from a native speaker. Learning Japanese from a novice is not something that I want to do.
This tells us that France has a cleaner energy mix than Germany, but I don't think this cherry-picked example contributes much to the discussion otherwise, no matter how many times you repeat it.
This is not a benefit of living in the suburbs. You can have a pleasant commercial transaction anywhere in the world - you pay for that.
What I found surprising about this survey is that most people wanted to split their week between the home and the office (according to Figure 3).
Only 24% wanted to work never or rarely at home; 27% wanted to work always at home; and 49% wanted to work a split week.
That's very different from what most people appear to comment.
If PFASs are "forever" chemicals i.e. chemically stable, how do they cause harm in humans? Won't they just pass right on through?
What's the mechanism that causes harm?
You could have learned the same thing more efficiently, with more support for why you didn't need to reinvent the wheel.
I just don't consider it a real friendship, and I think this is potentially dangerous thinking. Your counterpart is being paid to form that connection with you, and you are in a specific position of power over them in that situation.
It's nice, in the moment, to be given service - by someone working in a service industry (this is certainly not unique to the suburbs) - but I find it odd that you seem to describe this as a satisfying personal relationship. You will likely never see that person again, whenever they stop doing that job. Your connection and their connection is to the transaction, which includes a personal element at your behest.
If you had said: and I often see them outside of work, then I would consider that slightly differently.
This feels like a commercial transaction to me.
The "favourable media attention" you are talking about is here the Socialist Workers' Party reporting about itself on its own website.
I'd wager the BBC will not cover this at all, in contrast to acres of free promotion for Parler etc.
There are no flu related illnesses: the 2020-21 winter flu season has not happened.
Here are the results for the last 12 months of WHO's influenza monitoring (you may have to pick a country). They are conducting global testing at or above normal levels:
https://apps.who.int/flumart/Default?ReportNo=1
If you look closely enough at the x-axis, you might be able to see how much flu there is.
He is tweeting. That means his goal is to portray a certain image. Given your impression, that is part of his intended image and he almost certainly does not work as hard as his social media makes out.
(And, if he is that well-known, he might employ people to take care of his social media)
I agree - and this solution has been agreed by Google because it suits their interests. They now get to collude with other powerful actors without having to worry about the less powerful (and have set this as an available precedent across the EU).
I would find it more satisfying if Australia called Google's bluff and told them where to go.