Otherwise, you have to choose: either you invite one adult from the household, but then the other may be unaware of the event details, or you invite both, but then you must rely on them to discover it to avoid a scenario where they both RSVP for themselves and a partner and a kid, and you end up double counting.
and did you see the transparency report Google released with the censored bar on the secret us gov requests? I loved how you could see bits of the graph peeking through :)
Many industries (food, steel, electronics, energy, mining) are considered to have military strategic importance.
For instance, Japan works very hard to grow rice even though it would be much cheaper to import rice from China. It's because not being able to feed your own population is bad in a war. Energy (oil) is the same way.
The line between military and industry is often not very clear.
Imagine I need a car and I hear there is a 30% off sale in January. Yes, I'll wait. Im considering the lost marginal value to me (keeping my shitty car in December) vs marginal gain (saving 30%). That's what deflation feels like.
I'd say it (the expensive treatment) was a basic need. A need that was not being met. You could tell it was a need because those who needed it but didn't get it would die.
Can you explain a bit more? I'm interested, but I'm interpreting your post as "helps with DNA copying so its good for cell reproduction means it causes cancer". I'm sure I have it wrong. I mean.... loads of things we eat are good for cell reproduction. It's almost like saying "living makes you more likely to die"
Only partially true. You assume beef is an inelastic commodity; that we must consume our beef and will pay any price come hell or high water. True for some people, perhaps :P but other people may eat less meat, eat smaller portions, or switch to being vegetarian. The reality is that a world with expensive beef means less overall consumption of beef.
In short, prohibiting indiscriminate antibiotics would make it easier on farmers who already forgo them, but it could still hurt GP's farmer relatives (assuming they're currently guzzling down antibiotics) because the overall market for beef would shrink.
I was unpleasantly surprised to see your post deliberately undoing the GP's attempt to obfuscate his number. Is your goal to bully GP into supporting privacy?
It doesn't matter the technical details of whether the number is easier to search, it's the intent I find disturbing about this.
Your assertion would be better phrased as a conflict between short term and long term interests of the advertiser. That is, the short term interest of making money at the expense of the long term interest in retaining users. In the long term, consumers and advertisers interests are aligned: consumers want the best service they can find and advertisers want to give it to them.