> This perception, for what it’s worth, runs counter to statistics: Between 2000 and 2022, the years for which data is available, only 0.5 percent of startup venture funding went to LGBTQ+ founders.
The article seems to admit that its central premise is entirely made up. If a conservative 3% of people are some flavour of gay, then they are 6-fold underrepresented, at least in this area.
Okay but how does taste let you do that? I get what skill means but what is it that lets you differentiate between good and bad objectively? Is it experience? exposure? or just having good design skills? The article would be better if it went into the crux of this issue instead of hand waving it over.
That was because you could make money by turning old things into new things. Not so with garbage disposal, a service for which you almost always have to pay.
There is already a healthy trade for second-hand clothing to 3rd world countries (see pics of kids with "<Final's losing team> World Champions 2022"). The prices will be better for brand new clothes. The gray distribution channels already exist and will readily pay for new clothes - at steep discounts, but pay for them nonetheless.
Describing it as a market is not entirely correct. The clothes these people wear are garbage. As a species, we produce more clothes than we could ever wear. I am reminded of a story of a charity that accepted clothing donations for the victims of an American hurricane, and immediately had to stop because their warehouse filled up. Many clothes are not even worn once before they're thrown away, and one of the cheaper ways to dispose of them is dumping them on 3rd worlders. It's quite dystopic really the underclasses who dig through our trash.
… and put local African cloth producers out of business. The same happened with shoes sent to African countries by NGOs. Well intentioned, but local shoe manufacturers went out of business. The local population did not really benefit, because traders would get a hold of the free shoes and sell them on for just a bit less than locally produced shoes.
Are we to worry about train terrorism also? Shop terrorism? A person might bring a bomb to any crowded space, it simply is not practical to check all of them.
It's difficult to take down a skyscraper with a train.
Yes, 'shop terrorism' can be a problem (see: the UK during the Troubles).
I do agree with the implication that society must tolerate a certain amount of terrorism to avoid turning into a police state. That does not mean that airplane terrorism, without strict security, is so rare that we can ignore it.
Neither can most planes given the cockpit is sealed and locked. I suppose one could strategically try to take it down over a populated area, but that doesn't really seem reliable. The truth of the matter is that people can smuggle bombs onto aeroplanes relatively easily, and you don't see many blowing up. And it's not even entirely clear that planes can always take out buildings. The twin towers only collapsed because of the slow burn of jet fuel heating and weakening the structure. The impact alone wouldn't have been enough.
Cockpits are sealed and locked today because of regulations the establishment introduced in the aftermath of 9/11.
If airplane hijackings were as easy to pull off today as prior to 9/11 then they presumably would occur with a similar frequency. I don't think I've read news of a recent hijacking in over a decade.
This is probably a massive downvote waiting to happen, but I have more faith in 9/11 being a controlled demo. Not out of evil. Just to prevent New York turning into a giant domino show.
My theory is that terrorists hijacked two airliners full with jet fuel, and crashed them into each WTC tower, causing the structure to weaken from the heat and fail.
That tends to be the official narrative, but unsure if jet fuel burns that evenly. Though OTOH you're correct, it did start pancaking from the top, so there's that. Perhaps they were simply well-engineered skyscrapers? I guess we'll never know. Idk you're probably right.
What's interesting about this is that a human would hypothetically produce a similar error, but in practice would reject the question as beyond their means. I'd assume something about supervised learning makes the models overestimate their abilities. It probably learns that “good” responses attempt to answer the question rather than giving up.
> Polanski also worked as a hypnotherapist. In 2013, a journalist for The Sun requested a hypnotherapy session from him to increase her breast size and body image self-confidence for an article in the paper. Polanski featured in the published article, in which the journalist claimed that her breast size had increased. Polanski has apologised for his involvement, saying that the idea came from the client, that he did not charge for the session, that the therapy was meant to help with bodily self-image rather than physical enlargement, and that the article did not accurately reflect the situation.
You really just have to read this to see that what you're saying is inaccurate.
The article seems to admit that its central premise is entirely made up. If a conservative 3% of people are some flavour of gay, then they are 6-fold underrepresented, at least in this area.
reply