If there’s something to mourn, I’d say the lost oppurtunity to have him procetuted (there was a trial about financial fraud at that time).
If there’s something to mourn, I’d say the lost oppurtunity to have him procetuted (there was a trial about financial fraud at that time).
What I hear is mostly water pipes. Commercial buildings have them concentrated in bathrooms and hard to split for each residence.
I know there are bathroom less really cheap places but that attract type of people which property management/urban development corps dont want so they may also be reluctant for that change.
IMO whether we’re fucked or not is not a constructive argument.
In either case, the interpretation of climate change can lead to the same conclusion: a) we’re fucked up to the point of no return. So we can keep our wasteful society as is until we extinct, because changing our society will not achieve anything. b) we’re not in that bad situation so we can keep our wasteful society as is until the situation gets really bad and requires change.
Anything could be used to justify not making changes and majority of society/indistry ppl in power are super resistant to it (which likely reduces their profit).
In reality, it’s not black and white. Even if the ‘no return’ scenario is real, we can still lessen the climate change effect or delay catastrophic end if we make changes now.
AC could die all of the sudden too. One of my friends had it last summer in Tokyo, had to spend week w/o AC. It happened when he was awake in the morning, but I heard other horror stories of AC stopped at night and waking up with severe dehydration symptoms.
If it only drives the far-right, does that mean Facebook contributed shifting in window of discourse? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)
They added chronological, follow-only feed in recent update. Would you return if they have it now? How much ppl returning will be an indicator of its future.
Using engagement for metric will ofc render algorithmic feed “better”, i.e. addictive. Their value is not about mental wellbeing.
From a country who strips one’s citizenship if one gets another (Japan) and following the court cases to allow dual citizenship I say the motivation for dual citizenship is not because so that they can work for their origin country. Duties and rights of citizen work in both ways.
From what I can tell the main motivation for citizenship is a) directly related restriction in job market ( eg. operating license for the field) or b) to legalize and secure their right to stay with their family members. Immigrants have financially attached to the country of living and their decision is often practical, and their vote is dependent on whether the policy is beneficial to them, like people with single citizenship.
It needs proper background check for sure, but the argument of foreign interference is fear mongering and often xenophobic imo.