I wonder if they understand what they’re encouraging by making the punishment for protests harsher than the punishments for direct action…not that that’s any of my business…

Sounds like this "study" (aka a self-reported, retrospective, epidemiological survey - which is a type of statistics that I think just confuses the public to call a study but whatever) needs a lot more work to say anything with certainty. The kicker in the article is this I think:

"...the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake." Yikes. That, and it sounds like they didn't control for any of the possible confounding variables such as nutrient intake, demographics, weight, stress, or basically any other risk factors or possible explanations. Its entirely possible that once they actually control for this stuff, the correlation could shrink to almost nothing or even reverse when we see that people who tried this diet were just baseline higher risk than who didn't.

It's just sugar with a teensy bit of the natural brown color from unrefined molasses left in it. I don't find your observation that it takes 5 or 10 times as much of it to sweeten something to be true for me whatsoever, it's almost exactly the same, and leaves me wondering if perhaps you also find that today's low-flow toilets need to be flushed dozens of times to work, or that you turn on modern showers and just a tiny trickle comes out :)

Andrew Tate himself is absolutely a problem, that doesn't preclude there from also being other, related, broader, problems. Usually, when you see an argument in the form of "X thing (small, defined, addressable) isn't the problem, Y thing (large, nebulous, intractable) is the problem!" Then what is happening is someone is re-framing the debate from a cognizable issue to an unsolvable issue, to defuse any actual action. It's a great tactic!

No appeals based on incompetent/ineffective counsel for a civil case. In a criminal case, a convicted defendant may appeal on the grounds of ineffectiveness of counsel at trial. This principal arises because of the constitutional right to be represented by counsel. Such a right would be meaningless unless it implies a right to effective counsel. There is no such constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and therefore no such ground for appeal in a civil case.

I really hope app-based 3rd party food delivery just dies soon. The incentives are so fucked up and at cross purposes between the customers, companies, restaurants, and drivers. Like literally no one is getting a good deal out of it except the app itself. Support places that actually want to deliver enough to have their own drivers, and you'll almost always have a smoother, faster, and more professional experience.

Wow I wish there was some penalty for lawyers who deliberately made statements with this much bad faith. First off it's State vs. Federal, so fuck off. Then we're talking breaking into a building to prevent Congress from doing it's job, while assaulting federal law enforcement, versus non-violent document, election, and conspiracy charges, so fuck off again. And by far most important, we're talking about know-nothing foot soldiers who committed blatant federal felonies and had nothing to bargain with, vs Sidney the Goddamn Kraken Powell who must have hard evidence by the boatload that she forked over to score this deal, and who can directly testify about Trump's words and actions and meetings she was in. There's no comparison here, no equivalence, and these J6 defense lawyers trying to gin one up is just offensive.

The US stands with Israel, but we aren't going to stand by while they commit war crimes. Good on the Biden administration for forcing this course correction. I hope to keep seeing more and stronger evidence of our commitment to human rights and the international order during this war.

Shrooms specifically were a weird choice for the headline for sure. But it's just another variation on "drugs make you stupid and only teetotallers have an accurate perception of the world". It's really no less offensive than if they'd gone with "only a woman would believe..." or "you'd have to be a middle-school dropout to believe...". Like why? Why target some random group and call them out as idiots incapable of seeing what's right in front of their faces, when it has absolutely 0 to do with the content of the article? You'd have to be on PCP to believe this is a good way to write a headline :D

They aren't "airtight", that would awful. They are well-insulated and designed to take advantage of passive solar heating and air exchange cooling. The way roofs and windows and orientation on the land is usually done for western homes is just terribly inefficient for capturing and releasing heat in the right ways. Just some thick walls, a bank of windows facing the sunrise ,and some proper roof vents that can be opened when it's hot is all most passive houses really are.

Yeah, it's much more like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing than a trap. Or a "backed yourself in to a corner" you might say, or, "completely fucked yourself and the prosecutor knows it and is going to use it". But it's only setting a trap in the sense that any airtight prosecution tactic based on rules and evidence that leaves the defendant no way out could be called a 'trap'

well looks like this is going to get pretty bad...How is it the responsibility of platforms to take care of your children for you? It's not school, it's not daycare, it's the internet. Does the electric company have some moral or legal obligation to keep your children from jamming a fork in the outlet? Does a public beach need staff on hand to keep children from digging dangerously large sand tunnels that could collapse? Is it up to the water company to provide your child with special means of not flooding your basement? If we need this for some reason, why don't we need to force manufacturers to create cars that won't start for under-16's, windows in high buildings that you have to be 18 to open, or headphones that won't get too loud unless you enter your date of birth? This is some Footloose-level bullshit and I just do not get it I guess.