Lurker > streamofthesky

They care about their voting base dying, not because they care about the people but because they want to stay in office

they literally only started saying to get vaccinated after their stock started tanking.

That's twice what the Switch has, natively, and it's doing just fine. Expanding memory as needed isn't particularly difficult.

They don't do a toxicology report to make sure it's legit at least? Or are they completely fine with innocent citizens getting murdered?

As Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president he advocated a simple approach to fighting criminals: Kill them all, he said to both gasps and loud applause.
Shooting deaths before Duterte won the May 9 election averaged about two a week in the Philippines. Immediately after his victory, one person was killed by police or vigilantes every day. Around the time Duterte took the presidential oath of office on June 30, it had risen to three a day. By July 21, not even a full month into Dutertes term,it increased to 10 a day. In all, since Duterte assumed office, police or vigilantes have killed between 400 and 770 alleged criminals.

Those killed by the vigilantes are usually poor, some drug addicts, and some labeled drug dealers. The killers shoot from motorcycles, drop a cardboard sign with something like addict or drug pusher scribbled on it, then speed away. Killings like these went from being rare, to becoming daily occurrences, to reaching double digits every day.

The killings werent normal. All were tied to Dutertes call for the extermination of the countrys undesirablesthe addicts and criminals. He had promised to fill Manila Bay with their bodies. Within a week of Duterte officially taking office, the Inquirer was already writing about the killings in a fatigued tone: The killingsand the explanations given by the police to justify themcontinue to pile up. Officers killed two suspected drug dealers while they were handcuffed. Vigilantes killed a man who had mocked the new national police chief. They shot up a cemetery and killed five people, including a mother and her son celebrating a birthday, leaving behind one sign for all of them. They killed a teenager feeding his dog, who seemingly had no ties to drugs; and police shot and killed a suspected drug dealer because he tried to grab an officers gun. Journalists like Lerma, the photographer with the Inquirer, chronicled many of these killings. But until July 23, when Siaron, the sidecar driver, was killed, the deaths attracted little attention.

The officer claims he is part of one of 10 newly formed and highly secretive police special operations teams, each with 16 members.
He claims the teams are coordinated to execute a list of targets: suspected drug users, dealers and criminals.
The killings mostly take place at night, he says, with the officers hooded and dressed in all black. They set their watches, giving themselves one minute or two to extract target individuals from their houses and kill on the spot swift, precise, no witnesses.
He claims they then dump the bodies in the next town or under a bridge or they plaster masking tape around the head of the corpse and place a cardboard sign on the body that reads drug lord or pusher.
We put placards in order for the media, in order for those investigating [the] bodies to redirect their investigation, he explains, leading them to think: Why should I investigate this guy, he is a drug pusher, he is a rapist, never mind with that one, I will just investigate the others. Its a good thing for him that happened to him.

More than 7,700 people have been killed in the latest crackdown, some 2,500 in what police say are shootouts during raids and sting operations.
Most of the rest are under investigation and activists believe many were extrajudicial killings.
Lascanas said death squad members in Davao got 20,000 to 100,000 pesos ($398 to $1,990) per hit, depending on the targets value. Some members, he said, were former Communist rebels.
He confessed to the unsolved murder of a Davao radio show host who was staunchly critical of Duterte.
Lascanas detailed his involvement in the bombing of a mosque and the killing of the family of a suspected kidnapper. The victims included a pregnant woman, a small boy and an elderly person.
Both attacks were ordered by Duterte, he said.
This is how it began, all the killings we did in Davao, whether we bury or we throw in the sea, we are being paid by Mayor Duterte, he said.

Let's just kill a dude and write shit on his corpse so people will think he was a child molester and not care
Fucking disgusting

Was the first thing I was thinking, tbh.

That's a shitty assumption that amounts to taking a murderer at his word.

It is social media.

I guess its for non-binary. So, Ill probably just use Latino/Latina unless they specifically request LatinX

That is fucked up.

Oo

And then one the costs are taken out, she's not getting much.

Less than 1/5 of 300k? >_>

breaking news - alcohol is bad for you

However, public awareness appears low: one UK survey, in 2018, found only one in 10 people were aware that alcohol could cause cancer.

Yes, the only safe amount of alcohol consumption is 0

Alcohol is estimated to have caused more than 740,000 cancer cases around the world last year, and experts say more needs to be done to highlight the link.
There is strong evidence that alcohol consumption can cause various cancers including those of the breast, liver, colon, rectum, oropharynx, larynx and oesophagus. Research suggests that even low levels of drinking can increase the risk.
However, public awareness appears low: one UK survey, in 2018, found only one in 10 people were aware that alcohol could cause cancer.
Researchers say that needs to change. They revealed that in 2020 an estimated 741,300 cases of cancer, globally, were caused by alcohol. They suggested that alcohol labels should have cancer warnings, that there could be higher taxes on alcohol and that marketing of drinks could be reduced.
Harriet Rumgay, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in France, and a co-author of the study, said alcohol caused a substantial burden of cancer globally, and this was shown even at lower levels of drinking.
Alcohols impact on cancer is often unknown or overlooked, so we need increased public awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer, and policies to decrease overall alcohol consumption to prevent the burden of cancers and other diseases attributable to alcohol, Rumgay said.
Writing in The Lancet Oncology, the team describe how they made their calculations using existing alcohol consumption estimates for 2010, based on figures including tax and sales data, as well as other data such as risk estimates for cancers known to be linked to alcohol.
There is a delay between alcohol consumption and possible cancer development, so it is necessary to factor in a latency period between the year of alcohol exposure data and the year of cancer diagnosis, said Rumgay.
The researchers combined these figures with existing estimates of new cancer cases expected for 2020 based on records from previous years and hence not affected by disruptions due to the Covid pandemic to estimate the number of cases probably caused by drinking.
The results suggested alcohol consumption was behind an estimated 568,700 cancer cases in men and 172,600 cases in women in 2020, with the majority of the cancer cases involving cancers of the oesophagus, liver and breast. However, when looking at the causes of each cancer type separately, the proportion of cases deemed caused by alcohol was highest for cancers of the oesophagus, pharynx, and lip and oral cavity.
While most alcohol-caused cancer cases were linked to heavy or risky drinking, even moderate or low levels of alcohol consumption were estimated to have caused cases. The data indicated that drinking up to 10g of alcohol a day equivalent to a half pint or small glass of wine contributed somewhere between 35,400 and 145,800 cases globally in 2020.

The figures are likely to be underestimates, not least because they do not take into account former drinking and only include cancers where there is strong evidence of alcohol being the cause. Other complications include the risk estimates not being specific to particular populations.
Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UKs chief executive, said the research demonstrated that there was still lots of work to do to prevent alcohol-related cancers.
She said: Theres strong evidence that drinking alcohol can cause seven types of cancer, and the more someone drinks the greater their risk. Theres no safe level of drinking, but whatever your drinking habits cutting down can reduce your risk of cancer. Minimum unit pricing for alcohol, introduced in Scotland and Wales and shortly in Northern Ireland, would be a positive step for England and we urge the government to introduce it here.

Isnt she gonna get real fucking cold on the plane like that?

In pretty much every minimum income/UBI experiment that's been conducted, it's been found that people do ultimately end up working, they just use the breathing room provided by the guaranteed subsistence income to pursue the training they need to get jobs they actually want (instead of spending all their time working terrible low-paying jobs that don't leave them with enough time or money to improve their skills), even if those jobs don't pay enough to live off of. That hasn't happened with the Covid unemployment boost, but that's also a temporary thing (and therefore not something to plan a career around), plus the nature of the pandemic has made changing jobs a pretty risky idea.

Ultimately, people like working. Having purpose, routine, and direction are generally good things for people's mental health and sense of self-worth. This is why so may retirees pick up jobs after being retired for a few years. What people don't like is working miserable jobs where they're routinely mistreated, purely because the alternative is starving on the streets (and even then, the pay only barely staves that off). Given a choice between that and being able to survive just as well (if not better) without working at all, it's only natural people would choose the latter.

Overlooking that she was literally attacked and fleeing for her life, nobody died.

Pre-order bonus

That's pretty much how society seems to see it, although there's a natural gender dynamic involved.

Possibly? Realistic speaking, though, the idea that cheating is an absolute deal-breaker when so many more serious issues are not is more than a little weird. It would also depend on the extent. If a guy learned that his kid wasn't actually his, then that would be some pretty serious shit. That's kinda why women have it easier, since they'll always know their kid is their kid (unless he was switched at birth with a changeling or something)

Honestly, liberal men creep me out. Especially the ones that claim to be 'female/feminist/whatever allies'. It feels... really artificial? It's the only way I can describe it. Like they're proclaiming those virtues to cover up the fact that they're also the kind of guy who would beat their wife or force a woman against her will or something. I'm sure there's plenty who are good people but it also feels like it's only a matter of time before they say/do... something... that proves them blatant liars/hypocrites or like they're, I dunno, championing gay rights because they also are the ones who secretly act like hyper-racists behind the scenes and they think it evens out somehow?

Humans sweat at night.

Certainly you must realise going to bed "sweaty and gross" is totally different than the reverse of going outside to someone's workplace like that. You can't be serious. And are making a false equivalence. Who cares about your state in the privacy of your home. I bathe at 7:15 every morning I like cold showers.

Nobody in the tropics is gonna be waiting till nighttime to bathe for the first time lol. In fact your parents will cut your tail if you ever tried that as a child. That's when you bathe the 2nd time for most here.

Cause if you shower at both times, your choice to single out only the night showering people is rather baffling.

Might be the first time I ever agreed with you on something. The answers in here are both baffling and eye opening. Bunch of nasty asses. Then again I live in a hot country and can't afford not to bathe my ass before I go out.

umm, that counts as rape ... there's too much of a power dynamic between a guard and an inmate

That, and you know, people are with their partners because they like them. If they think there's a chance that things could still work out with the person they fell in love with, a lot of people will take it. You talk about "rationality," but -- overlooking that reason and emotion aren't always on speaking terms, which is why so bad relationships exist (and certain people get into bad relationship after bad relationship) -- wouldn't it be far more rational to try to salvage a relationship you wanted than to try to build something new with somebody else?

Elaborate?

That's kinda non-gendered, though, because women are also encouraged to save the marriage when the guy cheats. Granted, most people want to try to make a marriage work unless they're already at each others' throats.

imagine your own dad being like "no, this bitch tried to kill someone, lock her up. disease my ass."

• It's freaking cold in the morning in winter and in summer a shower to cool off from the afternoon heat is great
• Go to bed clean instead of dirty from the past 24 hours
• My wife gets a lot closer to me than my co-workers and I care about protecting her from my stench way more than them
• During allergy season, it's a common suggestion to shower when you get home to wash the pollen off
• I'm not a morning person, so no way in hell am I waking up earlier so I can shower
• Related w/ the prior point, I do any exercising or walks after work, not at the ass crack of dawn, so showering after that makes the most sense

CDC: Fully-vaccinated people don't have to wear masks anymore
*45% of Americans are fully vaccinated*
Everyone: Nobody has to wear masks anymore!

Can anyone provide me a decent challenge!

I defeated an officer.

How do you know the larger peanuts are better?