So envious of all of you that have cheap farmer’s markets. Where I am, my choices are
They’re so much fun to walk through though. If only I could actually afford to buy from them.
Right, that’s more or less how I understood it. I guess I didn’t communicate it well.
In any case, given that the voters understand that this is what they’re working with, the most sensible thing to do (and what everyone probably does) is to vote for MPs based on party position. Even if we wanted to vote based on their personal positions, there’s rarely enough information to make that possible.
I guess I don’t understand the system then.
Would you happen to know what it means when they say that the party allows a free vote?
The government of Prime Minister Paul Martin supported the bill but allowed a free vote by its backbench MPs in the House of Commons.
[source]
To the best of my understanding, when an MP runs under the banner of a party, they’re required by the party to vote in the same way as everyone else in that party unless otherwise specified (e.g. when we voted to recognize gay marriage). So when we vote on an MP, we don’t care what the MP thinks because it has no bearing on how they vote in parliament. All that matters is what the party leader decides on.
The article lists multiple examples with one of them being AI. The point is that we need better alignment between fundamental research and applications, regardless of what the field of research is.
Unacceptable. If your attention is on the puck, then you’re not looking at the ads. This will lead to an arms race where the puck continues to glow increasingly brighter while ads also try to match in how stimulating they are.
If that’s your idea of reversing the order, then you’re not talking about the same thing as SpaceCadet@feddit.nl. They’re talking about the order of operations and the associativity/commutativity property. You’re talking about the order of the symbols.
Sometimes, that means relying on […] laws
We’re you not just arguing against having laws to disallow stabbing? If not, then I’m not clear on what you mean by “controlling others”.
“Radical acceptance”
Couldn’t this also apply to abuse of power? Accepting that there’s the possibility of bad outcomes, and that’s the cost of certain benefits, like protecting everyone from some easily preventable causes of death. It sounds like maybe what you’re arguing for isn’t that exerting control over others in and way is universally bad, but rather that bodily autonomy needs to be protected above all. But if that’s the case, I don’t understand why you think it’s only acceptable to protect it by not actively doing something that violates bodily autonomy, and why it’s not okay to actively protect bodily autonomy (e.g. preventing others from inserting undesirable sharp objects into your body, whether that be a knife or an injection or anything else).
The Republicans centralized power in the presidency with the USA Patriot act […]
I agree that centralization is power is problematic, but this is a whole other problem independent of bodily autonomy. Unless you’re saying that controlling others is only bad when it’s done by a central power? But you’re also making arguments against mandatory vaccination in general, so I’m still unclear on what your stance is.
You flipped the sign on the 3 and 1.
prepare for what situations you run into where you know it’s possible to be stabbed
And what might those preparations look like? How does one prepare for that, as well as for the possibility of getting shot, or being run over by a car while on the sidewalk, or getting mugged/pickpocketted, or getting your credit card information stolen, or having your home being broken into and ransacked, or someone picking up your infant and running away with them, or having your drink/food spiked, etc.
Get a vaccine. Nobody should every be able to take that right from you.
A vaccine is never 100% effective. If it were, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place. 3% of people receiving the measles vaccine don’t get immunity, and there’s those who can’t get the vaccine because they’re too young, or are immunocompromised in some way. What option would they have for dealing with their own lives without controlling others?
So I can legally/morally stab someone who tried to stab me? How is that at all helpful? I don’t want to stab anyone.
How would this translate to the measles situation? If someone gives me measles, then I’m allowed to give them back measles? But they already have measles. That’s how they were able to transmit it. And I’ll still have gotten the disease. I want to maintain my health and not get infected in the first place.
You’re not the first person I’ve seen complain about nepotism in the party. Would you have any readings to share for someone who doesn’t know anything about it and wants to be better informed?
Catching up on sleep is on my to-do list.
Structured competitions require some rules and restrictions though, to keep things fair, beyond just being ‘equitable’ to minorities.
The question then becomes whether this ruling is fair. No one’s questioning the need for rules.
I can only speak for myself on this matter, but as someone who competes (albeit at an amateur level), this would not detract from the fun of the sport. Even if they end up at the top of the podium, that’s no different from running into a genetic freak. If you have five of them taking up the top five spots in the rankings? Then we’ll talk.
Anyone have tips on how to not get stabbed without forcing other people to stop stabbing?
Keyword: infant
A non-profit which owns a portion of OpenAI, the for-profit company.
Absolute numbers are meaningless. Tell us what percentage of the voting population and seats that represents.
The proposed change sounds plenty predictable. A car needs to stop at stop signs, and if you’re stopped, then you can also start again without worrying about bikes because you have right of way. At a red light, bikes have to come to a full stop, which gives them time to check if a car is coming or not. A car wouldn’t have to worry about this at all.
Edit: It just occurred to me that you can have an intersection where the bike is faced with a stop sign but the car isn’t. That would indeed be a problem if the biker doesn’t come to a stop. Not enough time to react to a car charging past.
I’ve been told the French is rather mediocre compared to the English.