AeonFelis

Only one century has passed since then, so we're still good. It's pollutin' time!

In other words - like 99% of the laws: good ~~publicity~~ intentions meets reality.

Alternative explanation for why your resume was not read: https://lemmy.world/post/20282317

Why did he leave the magazine though? What if he would have encountered some pet dogs later that day?

You are using critical thinking. Please stop.

Read his comment. Then read the post's title. Then read his comment again.

Something of literally human value may be in his basement.

Sir, I'm gonna have to inspect your basement.

Should Greece really be on that list? The only criterion where it's not grayed out is "Awarded Parts of China to Japan", which actually means "signed the Treaty of Versailles after WWI". And unlike many of the other countries that signed it, Greece did not get anything to itself from it.

This may be the first confirmed case, but it's probably not a good idea to make it the poster case for pro-choice. Let's look at the facts:

• She was pregnant with twins, and wanted an abortion.
• She couldn't legally do it in her home state Georgia, so she had to travel to North Carolina and get abortion pills there.
• A few days later, when she was already back home, she started to suffer from severe complications.
• The doctors in Georgia could not legally perform the procedure that could have saved her life - a surgical removal of what remained of the fetus - because it was to close to abortion.

The article says the clinic in North Carolina could have performed that procedure, but does not state why she was not brought there. Maybe her condition was too bad for the long travel? Maybe she was evacuated to the nearest hospital (a decision which does, generally, make a lot of sense) which could not have signed her away for an illegal (by Georgian law) operation outstate? Maybe it was medically and legally possible to drive/fly her there, but it was too expensive for her? Either way - it is clear that the ban on abortions in Georgia (made possible "thanks" to the Roe vs Wade overruling) is the direct reason why she could not get the treatment which could have save her life.

BUT!

The pro-life camp can easily pin this on the abortion pills, claiming that a nation-wide abortion bad would have prevented her from receiving them and therefore would have prevented her death (and the aborted twins' death. They won't forget to include that)

So if you don't sell it, and instead rent it out to other people, he'd get a portion of the rent the future tenant pays? And I don't supposed said future tenant will also get equity?

Have you consulted with a lawyer about this? The laws differ from place to place, but I'd be worried the equity you give him may also grant him some sort of claim on the house, which would mean he gets a say on financial things related to the real estate. This can complicate things in the future.

Also - what does "percentage of revenue if we end up keeping and paying it off years later" mean? That after he leaves you will pay him for his share in your house?