So let me get this straight. If there were *real* carbon offset credits, that would in your view be *just as dishonest* as fraudulent ones?

Four months later the BBC had similar article about people whose last name is Null, including a woman who was marrying a man with that last name.

The article also mentions other issues some people have because of their name either being too short or too long, and it's not just in the English-speaking world.

how?

It's not merely reading a book out loud, it is about correct pronunciation, voice inflection, tone, and other things we as humans take for granted.

There's a reason cartoons and video games get to be so popular. The voices behind the characters are what make the characters come alive. They can relate to the character and their voice conveys the emotion. For as good as AI is getting at rendering voices, it still hasn't mastered emotional input.

As an aside, have AI try to narrate one of Tolkein's books. How well do you think it will do rendering some of the names?

What the actual motherfuck are you talking about? Argentina has made its own bed repeatedly.

Such as their current president who's picking a fight with the UK over the Falkland Islands. I seem to remember the country doing the same thing a few decades ago.

Italy and Japan have shrinking populations. We would too, if it weren't for immigration. However our population growth rate is still low, and if it were any lower we'd be facing serious economic and social challenges. Sure, a shrinking population would drop housing prices, but we are far from having so many people there isn't space to fit them. Our real problem is seventy years of public policy aimed at the elimination of "slums" and the prevention of their reemergence.

If you think about it, "slum" is just a derogatory word for a neighborhood with a high concentration of very affordable housing. Basically policy has by design eliminated the most affordable tier of housing, which eliminates downward price pressure on higher tiers of housing. Today in my city a median studio apartment cost $2800; by the old 1/5 of income rule that means you'd need an income of $168k. Of course the rule now is 30% of income, so to afford a studio apartment you need "only" 112k of income. So essentially there is no affordable housing at all in the city, even for young middle class workers. There is, however a glut of *luxury* housing.

In a way, this is what we set out to accomplish: a city where the only concentrations of people allowed are wealthy people. We didn't really think it through; we acted as if poor to middle income people would just disappear. In reality two things happened. First they got pushed further and further into the suburbs, sparking backlash by residents concerned with property values. And a lot of people, even middle-class young people, end up in illegal off-the-book apartments in spaces like old warehouses and industrial spaces.

There's a lot of mythology around who Trump voters are. Part of it is that statistics can be confusing, especially if you're prone to jump to conclusions. Yes Trump wins the voters without a college degree, and people without college degrees tend to make less money, but we can't leap to the conculsion that Trump voters are poor. In fact, data shows Trump lost the $50k and under income group solidly in both 2016 and 2020. In 2016 he won every income group greater than $50k, although only *strongly* in the $50k -$99k group. In 2020 he solidly lost every income group betlow $100k, but but won the over $100k group by an enormous 12 point margin.

Putting it all together, Trump's core voter group are people with limited educational attainment who are economically comfortable of (good for them) well off without having a college degree. However he doesn't own any particular socioeconomic group; really elections are determined by changes in turnout in key swing states. There was strong turnout among Trump's *share* of $50-$99 ke voters in 2016; I don't think many of those voters changed their mind, but their compatriots who sat 2016 out came out to vote in 2020.

Just because the cigarette industry pictured doctors recommending smoking in its advertising didn't mean that *all* doctors, or even most thought smoking was healthy for you. This was largely in the 30s and 40s when they took advantage of a positive attitude toward science and particular medical science. They began to pull back from this after 1950 when evidence was mounting for the link between smoking and cancer, for fear of pushback from the medical community.

What does this have to do with lab grown meat?

You'll almost always find what you're looking for in your own history list within seconds.

You're presuming everyone has a history list. I don't. I specifically have it turned off. As someone else above mentioned, I bookmark whatever I want. No need for a history if you have what you want.

It's pretty rare to treat bible text literally. The bible is God's words interpreted by men.

Say what? The Bible IS the word of god. Those words are literally, in the truest sense of the word, in that little book. Those exact words, the word of god, are quoted by a multitude of Christians. A simple search shows site after site from Christians adamantly stating the Bible is god's literal words.

As for rarity, again, a multitude of Christians will tell you the text of the bible must be taken literally. Granted, those same Christians don't do what they say and pick and choose which parts to take literally (mixing and matching of fabrics anyone?), but they do take it literally, fire and brimstone and all.

They can do whatever they want in that regard.

What right to they have to do anything to anyone else? Would they like it if Satanists started doing something similar? It's none of their business who a person is if that person wasn't part of their cult.*

This is one of many problems with mentally ill religious people. They stick their noses in everyone else's business when they have no right to do so.

By definition, all religions are cults but not all cults are religions.

Where did I deny that some women might feel uncomfortable pulling up her skit with some creepy guy in the next stall? Everything I pointed to says that very thing. With all the rapes and assaults that men do against women, it's no wonder many women don't want to be alone with an unfamiliar man. As I said, that's why Japan has women only trains. Because women were, and still are, perennially assaulted because men can't control themselves, so the only solution is not have men around.

Of course what would be nice is if all those mentally ill Christian men who are terrified of their own shadows would follow their little book. Start with Matthew 18:8-9. Perhaps their problem isn't with others, but with themselves because clearly they are more worried about what's between a person's legs than being a decent person and letting someone take a piss or shit in peace. They've probably never read John 15:12 or Matthew 7:12 or Luke 6:31.

And who said I was for safe spaces on campus? Isn't that what Republicans are calling for with the protests against Israel deliberately killing journalists, medical personnel, and civilians? They're calling for safe spaces.

It's entropy, plain and simple. Sooner or later, no matter how secure an organization may be at any given point, skip ahead a few cycles, and attention to detail wanes. Managers stop asking questions, project leaders reprioritize thinking the problem is solved, staff do a "monkey see, monkey do", and then new gaps open up, get taken advantage of, management go into a state of denial, project leaders can't get their teams to give a damn, and then the inevitable breach or audit reveals the extent of the vulnerabilities, and management sends out the big press release that's always "We're reprioritizing security because we take security SERIOUSLY!"

Rinse, repeat, endlessly until the heat death of the universe shows entropy is always king.

What is a "veritable gold mine"? How do I get one verited?

Dictionaries. They're a thing. You might want to reference one if you have questions.