Remember Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
I fail to see the downside here. It's also not slang, it's just the word we use.
It's a word used by a small minority of English speakers. It's not a literary word. It's a slang used when talking to an audience which has not idea what it is. And it was used in the title of an article about a global company -- not a local event (which might have justified the usage). In the US it's considered British slang. It will not show up if you try to look it up by typing "define trainers" in Google search bar. If you try to lookup "soda" in the same manner (which is a colloquialism for "carbonated water", but not a slang), you will get a definition.
Yes, exactly what I was thinking: "blocking pirate sites violates free speech" may be an archaic form of Spanish meaning "fuck your wall, you tangerine-faced moron."
I confess it's been a while since I refreshed my fluency in Spanish. But still.
CVS has developed its own injector which it sells for $110.
It's the Golden Rule.
Millennials are starting to work later than previous generations, so they plan to make up for it by retiring earlier.
It's an anti-social company that's a horrible place to work. Everybody knows that by now.
What nobody can know for sure is why an individual takes his life, or what circumstances would have to be different.
Take Google, which in several recent lists is the best company in America to work for. Google has just shy of 60,000 employees. Given the US suicide rate of 46/100,000, if Google were largely reflective of that you'd expect 28 suicides/year among Google employees. Of course (a) not all Google employees are Americans and (b) Google employees are economically better off than most people in their societies, so you'd expect there to be a lower rate of suicide. But it's safe to assume a dozen Google employees a year take their lives.
And if you look at them as individuals, you'd inevitably suspect work stress was involved, and if you'd look you'd probably find it -- because it's a chicken-or-egg thing. Suicide is a catastrophic loss of coping ability; when you head that way you will find trouble everywhere you turn.
When something like this happens to an individual, everyone feels the need to know why -- even strangers. But that's the one thing you can never know for certain. Now if suicide rates were high for Uber, then statistically you could determine to what degree you should be certain that Uber is a killing its employees with a bad work environment (or perhaps selecting at-risk employees).
I think its inevitable and understandable that this man's family blames Uber. And it's very likely that this will be yet another PR debacle for the company. But the skeptic in me says we just can't know whether Uber has any responsibility for the result.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
However, like everything, if a technology comes along to supplant it, in this case, the cost of greener alternatives is lower than coal, it'll simply dwindle and fade over time, with absolutely no need for liberals trying to regulate the crap out of it.
This flawed argument ignores the incontrovertible fact that allowing coal to continue to provide energy on equal terms with other energy supplies rather than pressuring the market to switch to less environmentally damaging sources of energy would do real and substantial harm to us all. The bottom line is: the less energy produced from burning coal and supplied instead from less polluting resources, the better off the world is.
So in fact, there is a need for it to have the crap regulated out of it in a context where it can be replaced with (considerably) less polluting energy sources, which is exactly where we are today.
coal and natural gas are both fossil fuels. And both release carbon when burned.
They don't release equivalent levels of carbon, though. Natural gas releases quite a bit less carbon for equivalent units of energy produced.
And anyways isn't it a Progressive stance to bleat on about how there's too many undesirable people in the world and how to fix it?
No, and definitely not when it's thinly veiled "Brown people are to blame!" We are interested in fixing issues with the world, we're just uninterested in trying to claim it's all a massive moral failing on someone's part and make ourselves feel superior for it.
And you should realize that unlike the right, it's not a religion with us. If a key liberal position were there's too much babies and we need to stop trying to save lives, I'd be firmly opposed to that but would still be a liberal.
Optimism is the content of small men in high places. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack Up"