To be fair, about that women's world cup team, if i recall correctly it was a PR move to play an exhibition match with those kids and they were not trying very hard to win. I don't think they would truly lose to U-15 if it was, for example, a tournament.
Your overall point has merit but i think that specific example gets overused a bit.
They're saying that allegedly, Christians are not big on voting, and this statement is meant to encourage those non voters to come vote just this once and everything will get better. Then you can go back to being a non voter.
I think.
Horrible wording no matter how you slice it, though.
Some companies give stock as a primary benefit. Some of those companies may provide stock in lieu of some or all of a salary. That doesn't mean it's necessary valuable - they typically give you some amount of stock equal to a part of your salary (or some other normal monetary amount), and you would be hopeful the value increases substantially over time.
Just the fact that the other person has stock from their time being employed by Disney is no indicator of their wealth. You can own partial stock as well. It could be worth $50. We don't know.
I feel like the wealthy people you see are the ones who either get excitement from flaunting it or from lying about it (for example, mtv cribs was all fake). There are plenty of stories (yes i know they're just stories) about multi millionaires who drive the same old truck, wear regular blue jeans, and have a nice quiet (albeit larger than average) home.
It's not crazy at all. I just think we see the outliers more frequently than not because they want us to see them.
I appreciate it, thank you. Yeah fair points
I disagree with it being heroic, but i really appreciate the sentiment. I imagine more people would do it if it was more affordable. I've gotten some flack from my family for it being costly (minimal flack, more like a double check), but it's worth it (and they understand once i explain it).
I spent a lot of money to install solar, got new efficient windows, and got a heat pump to reduce gas usage. I'm thankful to have the financial freedom to make these decisions, as well as to have referrals for affordable options.
We're trying to be better about plastic usage and waste in our household.
I did these to reduce my energy usage. They'll save money long term eventually, but not enough to be worth it monetarily. I can't control much but i can at least try to do what i think is better.
Yeah i totally missed that, edited my edits. Thanks!
Comments like these remind me that so many maps are super unfriendly to the color blind, which has to be annoying to so many people
Edit:
Didn't realize this was specifically in 1922, so it looks like it is probably due to a combination of war/control and legal changes.
Austria was apparently split based on which part of the country was controlled by Napoleon, and this lasted for quite awhile, though a few sources cite different lengths of time for the mixed driving laws. I wanted to use a local source here but it was paywalled.
Also, apparently Italy and Spain (and Canada?) changed from left side to right side drive in the 1920s, so this probably reflects that change in Europe.
I think the question is asking for an explanation of how that is possible that some areas are right and some are left within the same country. Does the local government decide (city, state, etc), or is it something else, and why.
Additionally, they seem to be partially color blind, since they can't differentiate the purple from blue.
Edit: Copying my other comment here, based on some light Internet research which may or may not be accurate.
Austria was apparently split based on which part of the country was controlled by Napoleon, and this lasted for quite awhile, though a few sources cite different lengths of time for the mixed driving laws. I wanted to use a local source here but it was paywalled.
Also, apparently Italy and Spain (and Canada?) changed from left side to right side drive in the 1920s, so this probably reflects that change in Europe.
I don't think it's fair to flatly posit that since the CDC has been wrong at some point in the past, they can't ever be trusted. While i understand the concept of don't blindly follow words regardless of who said it, the sheer amount of research and dedication from an organization such as the CDC should count quite a bit more than the folks who have done none.
I don't have the means to do such research, and as such i will more heavily weigh the words of the applicable research team than i will the words of someone who has no knowledge on the topic.
I think the question really should be not "have they ever been wrong," but instead, "do i think they're wrong on purpose." A lot of research teams are funded by one side of an argument, which is cause for concern. The CDC is most likely not, and it would be fair to say they could be wrong, but likely not on purpose. Therefore i would say in this instance they are the more qualified experts who are also trying their best to be objective, and therefore, they likely have the more reasonable statement on this topic.
I did a quick Google search, and I'm guessing miso is the ulcer treatment misoprostol that you shouldn't take during pregnancy. A d and c is a dilation and cutterage, an invasive surgical procedure that removes something from the uterus. In this instance the something was a nonviable pregnancy that went awry from possibly the medication (or other factors).
Admittedly i was also confused about miso, and immediately thought soup? I was extremely incorrect