I get a 404, found the article here https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/grandma-charges-christmas...
651 karma · joined June 10, 2017
Also, are you studying Chinese this way or a language more similar to English? With all the different grammar and word order in Chinese, I can't see how I could pick up the meaning without some reference, unless I was extremely familiar with the material.
Edit: Also because there are vocal sounds in English that aren't pronouncable in Chinese, even character names are not the same. “Gandalf” becomes “gan dow foo”, for instance
It seems too crude to use as a way to enforce a protection rackett. eg. If a gang wanted to punish one farmer for not tithing them, by infecting his pigs, they risk infecting the neighbors' as well.
Could it be a kind of terrorism to put pressure on the government?
Could you point me in the direction of some of these simple audio books?
* substudy is here: http://www.randomhacks.net/substudy/
That's by necessity because you can't explain perfect tense to a newborn.
That's not a solution more than a choice not to face a problem.
> It does not create such pressure. As said, it only creates pressure to implement tougher rules on immigration.
Seeing people suffering all around you does create social pressure, in normal human beings, at least. I'm not trying to be trite here, but I don't think you really can deny that people seeing other people suffer inspires them to give.
> And it certainly does not help the countries of origin, which see their working age population leave and help a foreign economy instead of staying and helping the country.
Immigrant workers often send money home that far exceeds what they could ever make if they stayed. And they often do come back, after saving enough to retire, enriching their culture with western ideas as well.
> Again, Africans need to help themselves at home. No-one will or can develop African countries but Africans (the same goes for all countries, not only African ones).
Will you take a second to look at what you're saying? You might as well be talking about any group in need, ex. No one will or can help the homeless, but themselves. No one will or can help the disabled but themselves.
People can help other people, and often do. All you're doing here is basically saying “Everyone only for themselves” only you've cut the dividing lines by country. You might as well cut it by race, or social strata, it amounts to the same thing.
You realize societies develop on their own, right? And they deal with stressors all the time, right?
Unlike, say, an engine, which is only a collection of moving parts designed to work only one way...
> > You're like an engineer who throws a few bugs into a functioning system because "it will force the system to improve".
You realize societies develop on their own, right? And they deal with stressors all the time, right?
Unlike, say, an engine, which is only a collection of moving parts designed to work one way...
> The prosperous parts of the world are prosperous because the people living there made them prosperous
Now who's being naïve? You think the world is some sort of boardgame where everyone starts with the same amount of resources and gets the same options? I really don't know where to start with this...
That's akin to telling a homeless person, “Get a job!”
> ... creates social issues in the countries of destination.
Social pressures, which may lead to solutions.
> ...get a professional experience in Europe with the hard requirement that they must then return to their home countries afterwards.
What's to prevent these bright young professionals as soon as they are flown back to their country from just getting sponsored by a company in another foreign country and then hopping on a plane again?
What you're advocating for is a very weak attempt at finding a solution by doing much of the same. Unless society is pushed, it will never change. Immigration provides pressure for society to learn how to integrate poorer people, whether homegrown or foreign, helping everybody.
So, after western society has learned how to take care of immigrants better, not only is it helping them, but helping itself as well.
It's all relative. What you consider normal, is quite slimy for someone who is not engaged in your activity.
> but if you associate soap with that, then you obviously haven't found the right soap for you.
I just told you, this is not due to soap but to the increased oil production in response to you stripping the oils from your skin. Do you not understand this?
> this sounds like an uneducated statement to say the least. it's not about dirt (a bit of dirt never harmed anyone), it's about bacteria and diseases, and the risks posed to those with developing or weakened immune systems.
Jesus Christ, how did you construe that I thought that dirt caused disease?
> could you sleep if a baby you had contact with died from MRSA or diarrhoea? if you are consciously assisting the spread of infection and disease then calamity is the least you deserve.
You dare blame "MRSA" on someone advocating for less routine and systematic destruction of germs everywhere and anywhere? How do you think the "MR" part of "MRSA" got to be that way, hmm?
> If you admit to willfully using soap on items that protect and insulate an organism then these could by natural extension include skin.
There is a huge difference between washing a tool and washing what is as actually a human organ, namely the skin. The human body is complicated and tuned to a particular environment. Radically changing it by smearing chemicals on it several times a day will have many short term and long term unintended effects.
> also, the reproductive and therefore evolutionary rates of microorganisms far exceed our own - you and your kin would not evolve quickly enough to survive a pandemic.
If that were true how did humanity evolve in the first place?
> bacterial infection and disease are not a product of unethical marketing.nor are they some imagined, artificial problem. the suggestion that soap is not needed is conflating to the domain of cosmetics, of which it does not belong. I'm not saying soap is the answer to humanity's demise, it just enables us and other species to thrive.
Our species thrived quite fine before people engaged in obsessive hand washing. And I wasn't aware other species used soap?
> the major example being post-sanitation life expectancy.
Do I really need to explain to you correlation vs cause and effect? Just because people started washing their hands and started to live longer does not mean that one caused the other.
> firstly, soap is not a medicine so that analogy is safely dismissed.
If soap is meant to prevent disease, namely infections, and blood pressure medication is also meant to prevent disease, namely strokes and heart attacks, then how is not a medicine? What is it, if not, and why are you pushing its use so hard if it isn't?
> secondly, those are auto-negating or rhetorical questions, so I'm not inclined to answer. mine were life-or-death scenarios, which you chose not to answer. I wonder why that was.
Are you insane? You don't think scenarios where you ask if I would choose to live rather than die is not supposed to be taken rhetorically?
> I will not assume you would choose death, but instead presume you acknowledge that you would indeed need soap.
You get that I'm not advocating for the banning of soap use anywhere and everywhere, right?
> soap does not alter our immune systems. everything we are immune to has nothing to do with the availability of soap. it's more about protection and mitigation against the things we are incapable of becoming immune to.
If it only targeted germs that we are incapable of becoming immune to, and had no other effects, that sure, why not? The problem, though, is it reduces our exposure to all germs, and our immune systems do not develop properly in this sort of environment. There are many studies that show a connection between over sanitized environments and allergic reactions due to the immune system going haywire, as well as getting sick easily when they are then exposed to dirtier environments.
> it's absurd you dare include yourself in that "we". you are the minority here.
I am a "we" as in I am in a human being in the human race. You really cut those dividing lines deep, don't you?
> you are alive for two reasons, the first being you are lucky enough to live in an environment where sanitation is available,
Am I asking for a ban on sanitation?
> and secondly because the majority of mankind grasp basic biological concepts and are not living under some anti-goopiness delusion.
Sorry, I don't want my body to overproduce oils all the time and then have to wash those oils away every day to prevent being covered in my own body oils. We've lived like that for tens of thousands of years, it won't kill us all.
> there are several instances in pre-sanitation history where we did nearly all die. to say that you do not need soap is simply insane (etymological pun intended :)
Sanitation isn't wholly and exclusively comprised of hand washing. Me advocating for not doing it, isn't being against sanitation entirely.
At the end of the day, with your accelerated oil producing hands, that became that way because you are constantly stripping them of it, your hands are much more goopy than mine.
> you are sacrificing everybody's hygiene for your own comfort. what do you do around babies and the elderly?
I don't even think about it. Despite your implication of calamity, nothing happens. (Besides, babies are a lot dirtier than me, drooling and sticking everything in their mouths)
> despite your superior body chemistry, do you not wash your clothes in soap?
Clothes are another matter, they aren't living organisms with evolved mechanisms to survive in a natural environment full of all kinds of microorganisms that could kill you. You need to wash clothes just as you need to take care of any artificial tool.
Naturally, we don't need soap. This is a classic marketing technique, create a problem, “hygiene”, then push a solution, buy my soap. Only the soap creates more problems, but nevermind that. Oh if you're really suffering, buy my hand cream.
> would you refuse antiseptic treatment, or condone a team of surgeons with your unhygienic practice to save your life?
Would you take blood pressure medication when you didn't need it? How about put a cast on your arm for a week after lifting a heavy object just in case the bones are slightly weakened? Just because medicine can cure a problem doesn't mean you should use it all the time.
> there is a reason humans harness sanitation: it saves and prolongs lives
An enormous oversimplification. Obviously it saves lives, but if we lived in a world where we never came in contact with any microorganism that might kill us, our defense systems would be weakened to a point where if we were ever exposed to one, we'd all die.
But anyway, even just water can dry out my hands, and I don't want to use any creams. Either they contain alcohol and dry my hands out further or make them too greasy, and cause then to stop producing oils.
I think your just going to have to get used to the fact that there is going to be traces of poop and pee wherever you go. I mean, even if people like me did wash my hands, the spray from flushing the toilet disperses fecal matter and urine throughout the whole room, onto your clothes, on your hair, in your mouth when you breathe.
It's probably a healthy thing, exposing your immune system, anyway.
This demands the mastery of language which is a very high bar. Most animals haven't achieved this, so I think if you expect to get a computer to learn this way before being able to reason as well before you consider it having intelligence, you would also have consider most animals not having intelligence as well.
It's the fastest environment to go from zero to ”something cool” that I know about. And using the steam workshop, there are literally tens of thousands of games and projects with various different types of game pieces, scripted dice, etc. already created there.
Also quite cheap at around $20. And right now, half off. https://steamcommunity.com/app/286160
https://www.ovoenergy.com/ovo-newsroom/press-releases/2019/n...
Here is an interesting bit:
‘64 million unnecessary emails sent every day is contributing 23,475 tonnes of carbon a year’ 64,317,204 unnecessary emails sent by Brits every day x1 email = 1g carbon = 0.000001 tonnes CO2e per email (Source: Mike Berners-Lee) 64,317,204 x 0.000001 = 64.317 tonnes CO2e per day 64.317 x 365 = 23,475.779 = 23,476 tonnes CO2e per year
There is something bizarrely surreal about this awareness campaign.
https://augustss.blogspot.com/2007/10/simpler-easier-in-rece...
Here is the example code from this post
First, because it will help you a lot in the long run if you learn many words poorly than a few words really well, ie. if you kind of know 200 words vs knowing 50 words really well, you are much more likely to be able to read a piece of text.
Second, some words will stick in your memory easily and some won't. By “throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks” at a greater rate you will end up knowing more words.