stoneparchment

Whack. The only thing I can think of is if your base activity level has never been low enough in that several year period, you might not know what it feels like to be completely sedentary by comparison?

Oooooh I have some ideas! Some of these are paid/premium (but NOT micro transactions) and some have mild ads. But I share the distaste for data-mining, money grubbing, brain-melting-ad-ridden games, so I'm certain they are on the least intrusive end of the spectrum.

I really love biology (I'm a biologist...) so these are both pet games and usually breeding/evolution games!

• Fish Tycoon -- This one specifically. A classic! Breed and care for cute fish!
• Niche breed and evolve -- so neat and pretty educational about evolution/genetics. There's a slightly more complicated/difficult pc game if she decides she likes the nichelings/universe.
• Pocket Frogs -- Simple, low stress collecting game. it would take years to collect all the frogs, and there's a relatively active community of people who trade sets of frogs to other people to help them complete collections. Would be fun to play with her friends at school!
• Reigns Her Majesty -- a game about running a kingdom as a queen. When you die, you become your heir and retain some progress from your last lives. It doesn't fit the exact criteria you mentioned, but I think she might like it anyway!

GLAAD's Accelerating Acceptance is the most comprehensive survey we have to determine changes in public sentiment about LGBTQ+ acceptance. It's literally what I cite when writing research papers about queer issues. The difference is absolutely believable, and they validated the results with sampling bias in mind. There is no reason for you to cast doubt on the result like this, and it reads as disengenuine for you to do so.

Also, you don't get to decide what queer lives deserve to be in articles about LGBTQ+ people. Thankfully.

I don't think that's how this usually works?

IANAL and also I'm a dumbass but from when I've participated in these things in the past (and therefore when I've read the fine print), by the time they're soliciting claims they have already gone through the entire process of confirming that the lawsuit is valid and deciding how much the company owes as a settlement. So once it reaches this point, the amount the company pays is already known, and it's just equally divided among all the people with standing who file a claim.

So yeah, file a claim, because that's your money that you deserve because you have standing. But if you don't file a claim, everyone who did will just get a slightly larger amount of money

The point this guy is trying to make is that people are conflating Israel, Judaism, and Zionism in ways that don't always make sense

Like, the polls you're quoting are sentiments of Israelis, so this guy (and the vast majority of Jewish people in the world) are not included in those polls.

Even within Israel, that's, what, 3-4 million people that disagree with that sentiment? And Israelis are only ~73% Jewish anyway?

On top of that, tons of zionists arent even Jewish, they are even likely to be antisemitic tbh.

So.. what you said sounds a lot like "I don't have anything against one particular group, but the sentiment of the citizens of this one country makes me second guess the perspective of a person in a totally different country just because they share one dimension of identity"... In essence, it sounds a lot like prejudice

(free palestine, in case that isn't obvious)

because the very first thing you say in this post basically amounts to "I think I have the authority to decide the basis on which we determine who deserves to vote"

like, yeah, most people can navigate to their secretary of state websites. And it's not really your responsibility to have to link the pages anyway.

But doing it for that reason aligns you philosophically with people who think that the illiterate, the elderly, the poor, the disabled, the critically ill, etc. somehow don't deserve to vote. It aligns you ideologically with other people who think they can decide who deserves to vote, with people who want to disenfranchise others-- in essence, it aligns you ideologically with many Republicans

Dude, there wasn't any other option in the primaries. No one else was running. Seriously running against an incumbent in your own party is basically political suicide.

Palmer was the closest and I didn't even know his name until after our primary. It was only a good move for him because he was already an outsider who just wanted some publicity.

Basically, you either voted for Biden because iTs ThE rIgHt ThInG tO dO, or because He'S tHe iNcUmBeNt...

...or you desperately, nihilistically voted uncommitted.

As an education professional: what the hell, dude? It's not unfortunate that we aren't just dropping struggling students without first carefully examining why they're not succeeding.

You might be right that you can't let some students detract from the class for other students, but the solution there is advocating for better funding and more staff to be able to give every student what they need, whether they're above or below the expectation for their age.

Saying it's "unfortunate" that students don't fail (read: ruin their whole god damn lives) as often anymore is blaming our most vulnerable YOUTH for the systemic problems of our society. It's not their job to be what the school environment wants them to be, they don't even have a choice about whether or not they are there. It's our (as educators, and as tax paying and voting community members) responsibility to make sure they get the education they need to be functional members of our society.

We even have huge bodies of research to reinforce this. It's not a secret that the school environment excels at making nice workers, not critical-thinking and well-adjusted adult humans.

Take it up with the school board! Take it up with the local, state, and federal government! Take it up with the voters!

The whole point is that we still don't know what Lucy actually looked like, and therefore whenever we depict her we are "filling in the blanks" with our own interpretations. In the past, we didn't know whether she was likely to be covered in hair or not, but almost every depiction showed her covered.

The author of the article, who has a PhD and is the chair of a college's interdisciplinary humanities department, makes the point that when we exclusively depicted her covered in hair when we didn't know whether or not she was covered in hair, we were projecting our standards of modesty onto her. We also idealized her as a mother, as exemplifed by her depiction with protective and warm body language toward fictional children and male partners. These are aspects that various artists, researchers, and journalists projected onto a skeleton, not truths about Lucy as an individual.

When it was revealed that Lucy, in fact, was likely not covered in hair, and instead likely walked around naked and uncovered, we did not immediately revise these depictions. They disrupt the previously held projections and interfere with the narrative of Lucy as a "perfect mother" by modern standards-- not because she can't be both naked and a good mother in an absolute sense, but because these are disparate and conflicting signifiers in our modern society. In essence, it's harder to solidifiy her illustration as "the mother of all humans" to an audience of modern Westerners if she can't be depicted with "chastity and modesty", because we strongly associate those characteristics with good motherhood.

It is, therefore, a media analysis of the depictions of Lucy, it's not about Lucy herself. It's about how we project onto Lucy, and what that says about the people doing the projecting.

Of course, humans societies that are alive today are also valuable examples in the process of self reflection. But ignoring the observations made by the author and other researchers is like saying we don't need to analyze media (books, movies, TV shows) that depict society, because real society is right there!

I guess this isn't NO context but:

Innkeeper married to a nixie: “The Fey never do anything without a price...”

“... How much did you pay for your wife?”

The literature on PTFEs illustrates that it is, at best, uncertain whether there are health harms relating to contact and ingestion. Most of the studies struggle with confounds, controls, and sample sizes because almost literally everyone has been exposed to PTFEs. Toxicity researchers would not definitively agree that it is "completely harmless".

The other commenter is right, also, that PFOA and GenX (the chemical, not the generation) are more evidently harmful and both involved in, and released from, the creation of PTFE.

Just throwing this out here in case someone is like "wait, IS Teflon fine???"

Why would we even want that, though? Harris is a cop, and her presidency would likely be just as impotent and mediocre as Biden's. Like Biden, she's going to bend to corporate interests, please no one in the interest of pleasing everyone, not make or advocate for any major protective reforms to the democratic process (ranked choice voting, etc.), and try to take the high road against directly calling out fascism. When will the DNC get it through their heads that their departmental politics and seniority process shouldn't decide the president-- the people should?

Also, I find it immoral of them to play a horrible game of "switcheroo" with Harris and Biden. It feels like what you're saying is, they know she's unpopular and would lose an election, but if we switch her in for Biden through this presidency then everyone will see how great she is! We don't need an election, we just need the great and powerful DNC to plan our presidents for us!!!

To clarify in case it isn't obvious, I am a trans, disabled leftist. But this is EXACTLY why Trump is so popular and why everyone hates the DNC.