Melllvar

Assuming a ~20% shift towards pro-choice opinions I would expect more pro-choice laws, not an orgy of casual abortions.

Polling suggests that around 70% of women and 50% of men support abortion, though. If those stats simply reversed then nothing really changes.

To be fair, there are important differences between open source and closed source software.

I started using a white noise machine and fans on high when I lived down the block from a hospital emergency room. It sounded like a jet engine in my bedroom, but my brain learned to interpret the white noise as profound silence. I moved away from the hospital zone but still use the white noise to sleep.

I’m curious how it’s considered a “layoff” if it’s based on performance rather than the job itself being eliminated.

https://www.kingdomofloathing.com/

A free text-based RPG browser game with a unique sense of absurdist humor.

Yuh

“Old money” vs. “New money” is a particularly American concept, though.

Your nervous system has finite bandwidth. The extra movement and sensation signals drown out the “need to pee” signal, making it seem less urgent. It’s also why we rub the area around minor injuries to relieve pain.

Joey, have you ever been to a Turkish recruitment office?

Assuming it survives the fall to the bottom of the elevator shaft, the building management should be able to retrieve it for you.

Krombiception, of course.

…you do have krombiception, don’t you?

“Expressed greater intent to commit rape”

I would really like to know how they measured this. I get the feeling that the men being studied didn’t come out and state, “yes, I have a greater intent to rape” on a survey or something. The researchers must have been using something as a proxy for “intent to rape”.

I’d also like to see the stats for how many of the men have actually raped someone. For example, if 86% are rated as “more likely to rape” after watching porn, but 99.9% don’t rape anyone, then that would suggest there is no correlation between porn and rape.

Merde

“Not do anything useful” would be more accurate than “do nothing”. But that’s just my tl;dr.

[…] the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies […]

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/

tl;dr:

1. The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
2. The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
3. The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory

But the resolution passed anyway, which is why world hunger has disappeared.

Tom Hanks in “Big”?

https://youtu.be/RsDj2fzEGdM?t=65

Here’s a rainbow that is close enough for the trees across the street to appear behind it.