No one is arguing that people should be harassed "literally all the time" (or ever).
Some of the more egregious deployments of "safe spaces" in universities happened in response to controversial campus speakers who were deemed to have views that were threatening to some students. According to some campus radical leftists, the very presence of such speakers was "violence" and a literal "threat" to marginalized students.
Of course, the students could simply refuse to attend the talks of speakers they didn't like, but that wouldn't make as dramatic a statement as creating an explicit "safe space" where they could congregate.
There are no secrets to weight loss. Eat fewer calories than you burn. It doesn't matter if that involves keto, or vegan, or one meal a day. Thyroid problems also don't change physics.
The point of the article is, the timing of feeding vs fasting leads to differences in fat storage.
The work of Dr Fung, among others, suggests that concentrating eating into a few (4-8) hour period per day causes better outcomes than feeding during the entire waking period.
Same thing with the balance of macronutrients. Tuning the ratio of fat:protein:carbohydrate can make a diet more filling and more sustainable on fewer calories. This enables that "calories in / calories out" rule to actually work and cause reduction in stored body fat.
The lesson is "quantifying the cost of getting killed".
The method by which that lesson is conveyed to the student is the Socratic method.
The point is that the Socratic method of asking leading questions and building agreement at each stage was more effective in getting the point across than "do you understand X? OK, good."
The student constructs the knowledge him/herself and internalizes it better than otherwise.
Now I work from home where my wife and toddler are. Being home to educate her is worth more than just about anything. I don't have to drive 2 hours every day just to be an ass in a seat. Two hours where all I do is sit in a car and wish to be home.
To be fair, an hour by car each way is on the long side of a commute, at least compared to the US average. (For some cities, it's probably pretty good.)
I maintain that the best way to minimize the effect of a lane closure is to use whatever lanes are legal/open for as long as possible -- because leaving an open lane of travel unused only exacerbates the problem.
I agree with you. Fully packing an 'ending' lane until it actually ends is most efficient from a road usage point of view.
(I have lived for 10+ years in the Boston area but did not grow up there.
Do you mean that the candidate is too inclined to say "that's not my job" when they might be called upon to perform tasks that lie outside their narrow area of focus?
Given the apparently coordinated action taken by Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and YouTube (Google), it doesn't seem to be independent, private companies acting independently.
It may not be a violation of the First Amendment, but it could be bumping up against antitrust law. Taken together, these companies have a significant near-monopoly in content distribution.
It's more like the power company or the gas company cutting you off because they don't like your politics. Yes, technically you can use a generator or get propane delivered, but the question is whether they should be legally allowed to cut you off.
If they are truly a public square and common carrier, then these platforms need to permit all content that does not violate the law.
I don't think this woman went through a rational process of "deciding" that she was upset with YouTube because they are alleged to have cut off the income on her videos.
She snapped, identified the target of her rage, and took violent revenge.
Furthermore, assuming that one's 'consciousness' could actually be brought back in some kind of form that roughly approximates what it was like when one was alive, what's to prevent one's body/brain from being used in some kind of terrible medical experiment?
For example, what if an evil scientist or organization were to buy up cryogenically preserved bodies on the cheap in 300 years?
Yeah, you could say it's unlikely, but why is it more or less likely than being unfrozen into some paradise?
There's no dietary or metabolic need for carbohydrate. The human body can survive and thrive perfectly well with only fat and protein as macronutrients. Practically speaking, doing that is challenging and complicated because most foods are a mix of all three macronutrients.
A military ID is a also federal document (Department of Defense) but that only applies to a certain subset of the population.