deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What I can find all say seem to say more or less the same things about every candidate.
The US, but why? How does the answer differ in different countries?
Couldn’t you just add a comment that says that if the variable is false, then the person is sitting?
Or if the programming language supports it, you could add a getter called is_person_sitting that returns !is_person_standing.
In Iran, gender reassignment is legal, and they’ll even change the birth certificate to match, from what I learned a decade ago.
Homosexuality, however, is a capital offense, so many gay people are pressured to transition.
Some conservative societies seem to have the attitude that it’s better to go from one role with rigid expectations to another than it is to fail to meet the expectations of your original role.
I’m going to say outdoor.
The “door” part doesn’t really have any significance. No one would say camping under the open sky is an indoor activity, even if there’s a fence with a door around the campsite.
I think it makes more sense for the deciding factor be whether you’re in a controlled or uncontrolled environment. And while part of the cave might be controlled if there’s an artificial entryway or home, that’s not what you’re there to see.
I thought that until just now.
Those are pretty awesome! Thanks, I think I can get a lot of benefit from them.
Fair. I didn’t understand what OP was getting at, so I took them literally. It seemed strange to ignore that white people in the early 20th loved depictions of smiling black people in servant roles.
As for ads targeted at black consumers… now I’m curious. I know there were newspapers targeted at black readers. I wonder if they had ads.
Ah, hm… I guess that makes sense. Bringing people to the office raises the value of surrounding retail, which in turn raises the value of the office. Thanks, that explanation clears it up.
Buying something to create artificial demand usually isn’t a good investment strategy. A “pump-and-dump” can work if you can set off a buying frenzy and sell before it wears off, but it’s not a long-term strategy.
Besides, if that was the plan, leaving the buildings vacant would be just as effective as using them.
Ok, so it’s about responding to local government incentives? I feel like that’s an important piece of the puzzle that’s overlooked when people say it’s about real estate prices.
I see, so the idea is that they’re responding to external pressure from governments and financial institutions? I guess I could see that, though it shouldn’t be hard to prove by pointing to specific policies and loan conditions.
But also, some of these companies own those buildings. If they’re not in use, their value in the market drops.
How does that work? Why would a buyer care if the seller was using the building? If anything, I would think using them would depreciate their value due to wear and tear.
Yeah, I’ve been having the same issue. It clears the page after a BRIEF period of inactivity.
Here I thought I was doing OpenAI a favor by keeping garbage out of their training data…
Henry George wrote about this extensively. The solution is a tax on all land at just under 100% of it’s rental value. That allows landlords to profit from the structures they build and maintain, but not from the land itself. It disincentivizes real estate speculation, lowering the cost of land and housing and improving accessibility to people who use it productively.
They’re written differently, but pronounced the same.
As an uninvolved party, after reading the thread, I understand that you feel frustrated and misunderstood. But I’m sorry to say that I feel like the failure of reading comprehension was on your part more than theirs.
It seems like the majority of people who responded to you argued that there are not two evils, but two parts to the same whole evil.
No one, that I saw, claimed you were saying that the Democrats were not evil. But the disagreement was that you see the Republicans and Democrats as two evils, while your opponents see them as one.
Whether or not you agree, that seems like a logically coherent belief to hold.
Having skimmed the original paper about the trolley problem, I think what the author was trying to illustrate was the difference between direct and indirect harm.
If you redirect the trolley, you’re not trying to kill the man on the other track. You’re trying to save the five on the first track by directing the trolley away from them. While the other man may die because of this, there’s always the possibility he’ll escape on his own.
Whereas if the judge sentences an innocent man to death, that is choosing to kill him. The innocent man MUST die for the outcome the judge intends. So there’s culpability that doesn’t exist in the trolley scenario.
In one case you’re accepting a bad outcome for one person as a side effect, in the other you’re pursuing it as a necessary step.
I would argue that the doctrine of Hell introduced in the New Testament is crazier than anything in the Old Testament.