I honestly don't think we need to settle on trans oceanic shipping as a hard requirement.
Also, in terms of transportation-based emissions, personal vehicle usage accounted for 58% of the total emissions in the US in 2019. This number doesn't need to exist. The fossil fuel industry has structured cities the way they are and lobbied against efficient transportation in order to make themselves more money.
Like even if we're accepting trans oceanic freight as a given, which I don't think we should on the scale we do now, emissions could be drastically reduced mostly by better planning of transportation.
Tragically, no. I thought so too until quite recently. They did improve things but it's pretty rough
Since a viral load can be reduced to zero through medication, HIV-positive folks can be non contagious. The use of condoms, even if the viral load is not suppressed through medication, seriously reduces the risk of HIV transmission. They don't ask questions about condom usage. To be clear I'm not suggesting that HIV-positive folks should be donating blood, just that the actual factors for transmission are way more specific than "butt stuff = AIDS" the way that they imply. The result of this is still excluding queer folks end up getting excluded with language that's less overtly hostile and more implicitly hostile.
The screening doesn't exclude people based how many partners a person has slept with, or whether they have used protection (both of which are massive risk factors for transmission) and instead basically forbids anyone who engages in anal sex from donating blood.
So this letter board is clearly advertising Canadian blood services. Canada's healthcare system could use a lot of work, but it is far from the dumpster fire that American healthcare is.
If you want to shitpost about this and assume as Americans do that America is the only place, maybe try to find an image that isn't so obviously from a country with universal healthcare.
I rented a place that had one of these. It's just another thing to forget about maintaining.
A huge percentage of my life I've spent working outdoors in remote settings, drinking water from plastic jugs or bags. Maybe that means I'm just wired differently but I don't really understand the desire to have chilled water in the first place.
I'm of two minds here. I don't think anyone for any reason should be allowed to earn over a half million per year. But also there are people whose positions are far less important who have earnings significantly higher than this.
The carryover effect of an economic system that that has catastrophically imbalanced wealth distribution means that in order for actually qualified people occupying roles that are important, you need to compensate them at a very high rate.
It's super unpleasant both in the delivery (eating a sufficient amount of nutmeg for the effects is hard to do without vomiting), and also in experience. Buuut my experience was basically like a fever dream -- really bad but not torture-level bad.
This just sounds like straight up torture with extra steps.
No rehabilitation, no isolation of dangerous individuals from the general population. I'm decidedly anti-incarceration but at least there are arguments for it in place of something functional and just.
This just doesn't solve any problems and adds some new ones. It sounds unbelievably cruel.
So that's actually not true, but for reasons that I think are weirder and more interesting than anything implied by either side of this "debate."
There are actually about 50% more women who have Y chromosomes than originally expected, and also: microchimerism seems to be extremely common in people who give birth, seemingly regardless of whether or not they give birth to children with XY chromosomes. But the genetic remnants of fetuses that have XY chromosomes stay in the body for many years (possibly a lifetime), and this has a fairly significant effect on genetic composition.
I get what you're saying and I don't totally disagree, but I think the main thing that I keep learning is that "biological sex" is just not actually a particularly meaningful concept.
Yeah, the simplicity and also effectiveness of advertising algorithms are sometimes overstated.
There is a huge amount of data that is stored about users, and that does definitely make its way into the ads that we see. Grouping all the user information into ad categories is not a simple task, so there's a lot of mismatch that happens. But a lot of the time it's also location-based, time-based (when who views what) or even just what the biggest spenders want us to see based on our demographics. Tits and ass are fairly demographic agnostic, so they appear in a lot of feeds regardless of preference or orientation.
Right-wingers are fairly desperate to push their viewpoints and pay a lot to so, so we end up with a lot of vague associations or fully non existent ones resulting in that kind of content appearing in feeds. I'm a left leaning, queer and trans woman living outside the US and I see these bullshit ads from time to time (which for obvious reasons is pretty infuriating). I honestly think that having a small online footprint and using adblockers, privacy-friendly browsers and operating systems, etc. is going to become more and more common just as a mode of self-care.
I honestly don't think we need to settle on trans oceanic shipping as a hard requirement.
Also, in terms of transportation-based emissions, personal vehicle usage accounted for 58% of the total emissions in the US in 2019. This number doesn't need to exist. The fossil fuel industry has structured cities the way they are and lobbied against efficient transportation in order to make themselves more money.
Like even if we're accepting trans oceanic freight as a given, which I don't think we should on the scale we do now, emissions could be drastically reduced mostly by better planning of transportation.