would be like if someone an ethincally Asian UK citizen won miss UK and then got accused of pushing an Eastern standard of beauty in an ethnically Anglo-Celtic-etc nation.
I mean that is happening all the time. Especially if the winner is black. So the controversy isn't new. It's still racist and stupid.
You could start as a ranch hand, especially if you know how to ride. You can work on both a regular ranch or on a "resort ranch" that focuses on tourism. You just have to find a ranch that has around that 20ish employees.
But then it would fit all of your points. You are spending your whole day with the same group of people.
Drifting between groups will depend a bit on your exact duties but no matter what you are going to get to know everyone and work with others occasionally.
New things are constantly coming up to do. Your duties also change with the season. And even if there is "nothing" to do you will still hang out with the other farm hands.
You have that authority over you in form of the ranch manager/owner.
Pay isn't great but it might come with free lodging, then it isn't that bad.
It's not a legitimate competition, that's the entirely point. The claim is AI models rely on stealing content and changing it slightly or not all. And if a "regular" journalist does this, they would get into trouble. Just because the entity switches to an AI company doesn't make this business model legitimate.
A few years ago there was a big plagiarism scandal on IGN because one of their "journalists" mostly took reviews of other people, changed a few words, and published it. Obviously that's not fine.
Yes, Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Hades, and Hestia are the children of Kronos and are the ones that killed him .
Your calculations to get 100% are right but you are off for the 50% and. You are only considering one specific outcome. But it doesn't matter if the first question is wrong or the second so the chance is 0.250.75+0.750.25 which is 37.5 or double your answer. We can double check it by looking at it from the other direction.
The chance of failure is 0.75*0.75= 56.25%.
So there is a 43.75% of passing the first go around. Split between a 6.25% to get 100 and 37.5% to get 50.
Same mistake for the second calculations. 44.22% is the chance to get 50%
Kids being able to openly participate on porn sites would be a feast for pedophiles and groomers. We already have enough trouble with that on social media and dating sites/apps. And while in an ideal situation there just wouldn't be bad people, sometimes we need to protect people from themselves because of others.
So while I am open for a discussion about lowering the age requirement, I still firmly believe a minimum age is required. But whether that's 14, 16, or 18 I don't know.
I am in favor of stricter age verification for certain content. Not only for porn but also dating apps, social media, online shops, etc. But the current methods of age verification are a privacy nightmare and go well beyond what is reasonable. Especially since companies can't be trusted to not do bad stuff with that information.
What is necessary is a double anonymity age verification service. Ideally run by a company that by law is required to be very transparent. That way we don't have to provide personal information to companies that have no actual need for it but can still reduce the amount of minors getting into places they shouldn't be.
Yes, it won't be perfect, yes there will always be bad actors, but it will still do more good than harm.
I personally am open for a discussion about reducing the minimum age to view porn. I don't have strong feelings either way.
Don't read to much into it. This is a pure publicity stunt to slow down the rate of people leaving the church. But they don't change at their core. In a few years from now we will find out about all the abuse and dirty businesses going on right now that the Pope and the rest of the Catholic Church is sweeping under the rug as we speak.
They have done similar publicity stunts before. Pope Francis was preaching tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality as far back as 2013. Did things really improve since then?
I see it the same way as Nestle announcing some kind of charity or "commiting" to some kind of sustainability. Yeah sure it does some good but they only do it to hide all the bad stuff.
I almost exclusively use wired headphones. Only time I use the Bluetooth is when going the gym.
I don't feel like the cable is inconvenient at all. But there are advantages in the two things I care. Better audio quality and no battery to worry about. So I prefer the wired one and use my headphone jack almost daily.
YouTube doesn't have a say in this, it's up to the copyright holder of each individual song. YouTube just detects if a song is copyrighted or not then gives the owner the option what to do. The three common ones are
So whoever holds the rights to Phil Collins song is the one responsible for your video being disabled. While whoever holds the rights to the song Joe Schmo decided to go with option 2 or 3.
This process has mostly been automated. So it feels like YouTube is doing it but they are just following the orders of the copyright holder.
The system is a bit overzealous in some cases and even fair use gets flagged.That's on YouTube. But to be fair, it's very hard to have an automated system detect the difference between fair use and not. YouTube should just implement a better way to dispute false copyright claims.
In this case you literally divide 1 by 3. And that's 0.3333 . And if you multiply 1/3 by 3 you get 1 and if you multiply 0.3333 by 3 you get 0.9999. So these two are the same.
Your assumption of what the graph displays is wrong. Yes, it lacks a lot of information and the post could have clarified more.
But at the bottom of the graph you can see that the x-axis is years. Which is a strong indication that this graph displays the life expectancy of latin american countries. Whicha quick goolge seems to confirm. And it shows that El Salvador ranks poorly even amongst them. Since most migrants move to a country for a better life, the pool of countries that El Salvador can pull from is rather small.
But that obviously misses the point that many people who would move to El Salvador on using this opportunity either move there to help improve the situation for the average person. Or at the very least would have enough money to afford a better lfiestyle and not be affected by the average life expectancy. Which obviously is going to be low for a country that suffers from poverty and gang violence as El Salvador does.
So the "general" assumption of migrants moving to a "better" countries doesn't quite apply here.