That assumes that their mission is to stop anything. UNRWA's sole mission (like most large-scale nonprofits - not suggesting they're unique) is to continue to procure money for its 30,000 or so salaried posts.
There's nothing morally wrong with not knowing when you want to take a holiday in advance and acting accordingly to cover your bases. What an interesting sentiment...
The only thing wrong with what she did was not to read the fine print and realize that paying for free cancellation meant paying Booking.com to pay on her behalf rather than directly paying the hotel.
True! Thankfully under Socialism there wouldn't be a Grand Prix in the first place, and the Hotel would be government-run and only house Party members during special events anyway.
The important thing is that these things get funded. It doesn't matter what institute funds them. If an institute becomes stultified and corrupt, there's no reason to champion it over creating another.
It really does suck that US companies have belatedly figured out that demand is elastic and jacked up the prices. Where I live that happened long ago.
The thing is that he doesn't present any alternative. I know he's some variant of a communist, so does he suggest government control for everything? As if that solved anything? I guess what you find on empty market shelves is cheaper.
Truly a question - what's your solution? What's a solution? People have been arguing that everything is getting worse since forever. I've yet to see people organize and stop buying Pepsi or Coke. Should the government do it for them? Do you propose AI will solve the Socialist Calculation Problem? You're probably against AI as well...
Well, "win" as a noun is a word from Old English attested before 1150 [1].
And as a word firmly in the language it has its own specific uses in comparison to "victory". It would be silly or pompous to call a win in a sports game a "victory," for example. It would similarly be out of place to call a victory in a battle a win.
"Congrats *on the big win" doesn't sound out of place.
The only reason this Ancient Greek definition holds is because it is a dead language. Prescriptivism cannot stop natural language change. Any "X should only mean Y" statement is a dead-end conservative approach.
As usual, "Conjecture Presented as Fact in Headline"
They found a fabric in a royal tomb in Greece that fits the description of Alexander's famous sarapis.
What is more likely - that this is Alexander's sarapis itself or that a very rich guy had one made just like it?
What's the logic of the first sentence? I can't parse it - is that it should be illegal for intelligence agents to be heads of state? Or is it that states with powerful armies shouldn't have former intelligence agents as heads of state? Or what?
As for the second question - why is every generation of the left charmed by a different set of psychopathic terrorist groups?
Makes sense. Now that the Graun's chief enemy is Israel and Colonialism, why not combine two favored targets into one hateful guy? I'm also pretty sure he was cis-gendered.
This has to take the cake for "most spurious correlation."
The most coherent reading is "places which report more homocide data are correlated with reporting more left-handedness"
Ugh, we're going through the cycle of the author of the book going around spreading his little tidbits in all the main sites/podcasts (I heard him on Econtalk).
For us rest-of-the-worlders - note that Peanut allergy is not an invention - there is a small minority of people with peanut allergies, even after exposure to peanuts as infants. However, there is a larger subset of people who developed peanut allergy in the US through full avoidance of peanuts, so that when later in life they came into contact with them, it started an IgE-mediated cascade (according to the model, on the second exposure to peanuts) that could've been avoided had their body been habituated to peanuts earlier in life.
The real thing to learn here is how suggestions become dogma in human society. "We don't know what's causing allergy, maybe just avoid it?" becomes "We [some formal group of pediatric allergologists] suggest to avoid peanuts" becomes "Our guideline is to avoid peanuts".
The point of Evidence-Based Medicine is exactly to avoid this, but note that this is the standard affairs in anything else in life. Iterative improvement is built on doing something until it stops working/starts harming and then doing something else. It's just magnified where human life is concerned - Military, Aviation, Medicine, etc.
Just like in Aviation - the best solution is process - to admit mistakes and force changes and improvements without knee-jerk opprobrium and litigation (here it's obvious that no medical association should suggest something extreme if there's no evidence for it one way or the other, duh) - but creating sensationalist headlines demonizing a group just makes sure that future mistakes will continue to be covered up.
This is a commonplace corollary to Gell-Man Amnesia/Knoll's Law[1] - in truth every single field/category in the universe has varying degrees of stupidity, it's just that you only reacts emotionally to the stupidity in the fields you have a personal attachment to.