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.
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.
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.
That might not be true. They have more receptors for color but tests indicated that they are worse at differentiating colors than humans or other animals. They could only differentiate wavelength of 25 nanometers apart while humans can do it between 1-5 nano meters.
Also being able to see a wider spectrum might be terrible with all the light we use in electronics.
Nutella,
I only buy it once or twice a year but no other chocolate spread tastes nearly as good.
Bush was the worse president, Trump is the worse person.
I can see a lot of potential presidents in 2001 act the same way as Bush did, especially any other Republican. Even Gore would have gone to war in Afghanistan. Unless of course we go down the rabbit hole of could he have prevented the 9/11 attacks. The Iraq war probably would have been avoided under Gore.
But I don't see any other president doing the same damages that Trump did. While the current status of the Republican Party has many people just as bad as Trump, I don't think they would have the same traction today without Trump.
And let's not forget the worst of Trump was prevented. If his coup would have succeeded, he would even be the worse president.
I have to admit I underestimated the damage a bit. I imagined it to be around 40 in most scenarios.
But I think streamlining the range wouldn't hurt. Instead of making it optional by expending exhaustion give it a longer base range and cause a fixed amount of exhaustion. Or perhaps make the user fall in a magical coma for X-time instead. Because I would say exhaustion rules are often ignored and I personally didn't even know how many levels there are and what they do.
The first issue is Death Ward. It basically negates a big downside of the item.
The item also doesn't seem that good for a desperation self sacrifice scenario. Most likely in any scenario where such a move is necessary the user won't be anywhere near full hp. Reducing the value of the item. The small range also severely limits the use of the item.
I would say in a lot of scenarios casting any aoe spell centered on the person would achieve more. A simple fireball is around 28 damage with much higher aoe.
The item requires a lot of planning and preparation to be useful rather than being an emergency item to get out of a tricky situation. Which isn't necessarily bad but goes against your inteded usage.
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.