Gloomy

I'd say yes. So far there is just the Gracias case that they have openly ignored the supreme Court.

Courts have stoppednabd reversed firings, for example. DODGE is loosing court cases left and right.

So far they are fighting the cases in court by appeals.

Take a look at the volume of lawsuits so far.

https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tracker/

Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum:

Second this, one can't just say something like this and not give a source.

There is no concept of hell in the old testament. That's something the new Testament added on.

I got you bro.

NSFW, in case that wasn't obvious.

You... You think a battery is a magic physics defying substance?

I mean, I don't see capitalism beeing a way to solve the climate crisis and do belive that degrowth is going to happen (by design or desaster), but the success of renewable energy is very much a capitalism success story.

That video shows like 70 % to 80 % of the people beeing white. How is are you calling this fake news and then post a link that literally proves the point of the article??

I wanted to give you an upvote, but you are at 69 right now an I couldn't bring myself to do it.

I agree that it limits the number of woman that might be options.

But you are making it sound neat impossible. And that that is just not true.

Somebody will be out there who sees something in op. It might take a bit to find her, but honestly, as long as he learned to treat her as a human beeing and not as an asset to aquire he'll be good.

I met my wife with 36 while she was 38. There are reasons she was single. There where reasons I was a single.

We have been the happiest couple I can imagine and I can't fathom how much luck I had.

Don't give up. Learn to be a descent humans. The rest will fall into place eventually.

but considering how many people get a large soda in the morning and sip on it all day,

I am European and this sentence broke something in my soul.

What is this, lost earth?

Reading random studies

I searched for related studies and found this one relevant. That is not random.

you find on news sites

It's from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?

that are outside your area of expertise

While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It's not hard to understand for lay people.

an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.

That's why you read more then one study. You know, like I specifically called out that this one links to a lot of related work?

In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates

It indicates that republicans are more likley to belive fake news.

Just because it says it found A doesn't mean B is true.

Yes, but nobody did that here? I'm confused what you are getting at.

It doesn't answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.

Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.

In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720622001537#bib0045

There is very little evidence for the idea of persistence hunting ever beeing a thing.

Despite the idea’s foothold in popular culture, however, there is no hard evidence that ancient humans were persistence hunters, much less that persistence hunting shaped evolutionary traits. In fact, what evidence there is doesn’t support the notion that early humans acquired their meaty meals through feats of running endurance; it flatly contradicts it.

https://undark.org/2019/10/03/persistent-myth-persistence-hunting/

Streng genommen ist eine Ampel ohne gelb besser statt eine Ampel die mal gelb wird und mal nicht und wenn sie gelb wird nach Laune entscheidet, wie lange. Das ist dann nämlich eine scheiß Ampel.

Oder halt wie beim Bürgergeld handhaben. Was man selbst oder ein Familienmitglied verdient wird von der Diät abgezogen :-)

Yes, let's have exponensial groth instead.

I'm fine, thanks for your concern.

Im not saying Envormentalim is too much for Star Trek. Nor am I saying Queer topic are. That's simply not what I wrote anywhere.

I said they felt tucked on. Read my comment below got some more detail, if you want to.

But thanks anyway for your input, I have done some more reading and somewhat have to agree with you.

ST:D did indeed treat Queer topic with respect. It's still a shitty show and I see the pandering aspect of it. I do still wish it would have been embedded in a better story (and way of telling said story). But I do stand corrected in regards to their overall handling Queer topics.

It's been some time since I watched ST:D and it was a quite negative experience overall. I suppose that lead to me not seeing the positives in it. I did some more reading now and see where you are coming from.

Thanks again for your input.