Wow. You have issues mate.

Um, you’re taking my comment way too seriously. I replied to a cartoon picture. I literally just made up a silly explanation that would fit the photos. Please take a deep breath and go touch some grass.

Please could you define what you understand by “high logic”?

Personally, I’m only familiar with “higher-order logic” as defined in maths. So for me, someone with “high logic” has the ability to interconnect and solve complex problems, which is one of the key skills measured by IQ tests.

Realising your beliefs and reality do not align doesn’t require complex logical reasoning, so for me the statement you quoted doesn’t mean high logic.

Personally I’m betting on Nessie having camouflage skills like an octopus, and instead of squirting ink they can create the equivalent of an underwater dust cloud. That would absolutely explain these photos.

Edit to add: /jk since apparently that wasn’t obvious 🙄

Your bias is showing. Intelligence isn’t necessary to be left wing. Change is hard for everyone and requires emotional intelligence, not IQ.

Would you mind sharing more details on your experience?

Like, was it a single person that got you thinking, or feedback from a group?

Is there a particular conversation that you remember as the start of change, or rather a gradual shift over time?

Did/was something happen(ing) in your personal life at the time that made you more open to hearing another opinion?

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

No argument from me, I understand why anti-DEI proponents oppose it. Their racism, classism and misogyny is clear.

The point to my comment was simply that the original commenter is incorrect in thinking that not having DEI explicit adverts excludes a business from having DEI targets.

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

I understand this to mean that job adverts shouldn’t explicitly target DEI hires. That is not, however, the same as not implementing DEI targets in a company.

The intelligent way to implement DEI has always been to interview and identity the top candidates for a role, and then if you have 2 capable and competent candidates and one is a women / minority, they get the job. This law wouldn’t prevent that.

That doesn’t apply to hiring women though, which is also DEI.

It’s basically subjecting the entire population to 1 hour jetlag twice a year. The problematic switch is to summer time (losing an hour), which causes many people to be tired for most of the week following the change.

Lots of tired people means more accidents on the road and at work. There is also a definite uptick in heart attacks.

Then there is the longer term impact of late evening light on people’s sleep. Whilst it is more social to have more light at night, it’s better for our sleep for darkness to come earlier and to have more light in the mornings. There are tons of studies on the health impacts of insufficient sleep and / or misaligned body circadian rhythms. Summer time is particularly problematic for night owls (which includes all teenagers), who already struggle to fall asleep at a reasonable time.

The economic costs arise from things like loss of productivity due to tiredness, accidents, and higher health costs.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain, I really appreciate it.

Tissue Resident Macrophages hang out in the area of initial infection, waiting for “that guy” to show up again.

This is specifically the bit I’m struggling with. How will they know it’s “that guy”?

It’s a bit like saying “We know this criminal uses disguises. We’ve given everyone copies of his mugshot, which they’ve used for target practice. Now if he wanders in wearing a disguise, people will recognise him.”

As I understand it, “hidden” is a relative thing.

I guess this is the answer?

Going back to my analogy, you’re saying his disguises are pretty simple. So he might wear glasses or a fake beard, but he isn’t likely to turn up in a full clown outfit, with multi-coloured hair, make up, and a big red nose.

This didn’t answer the question for me.

I get the 1st part: They’ve unhidden a stable spike protein hidden by sugars and used it to create an immune response.

The long-term effectiveness is where I’m getting lost. How will the immune system know when to use these particular anti-bodies in the future? If, say, 5 years after being vaccinated I’m infected, surely the relevant spike proteins are hidden by sugars. So how can my body recognise them as the same protein and make more of the correct anti-bodies?

Oh please.

If the USA hadn’t destroyed Iran’s democracy, the houthis wouldn’t have Iranian funding and would be a non-issue, and that’s just touching the tip of the mess the USA caused in the Middle East. There’s a reason the Houthi slogan says “Death to America” and not “Death to Europe”.

How about taking responsibility for cleaning up your own mess? Also, feel free to contribute to the costs of all the refugees the USA created for Europe.

Pannekoek in Afrikaans, pancakes in South African English.

The thick American version we call flapjacks.

Stealing this comment from u/Turicus on reddit (r/Switzerland):

I think they knew what they bought. This article is exaggerating.

The hangars at Belp are being upgraded to accommodate the new jet. Until then it flies from Payerne, ZRH or GVA. The first two are reachable in an hour from Bern.

The article is saying that the runway is too short. But that’s true only at full load. At MTOW (maximum take-off weight, meaning with 100% fuel and passengers), the plane is rated for a runway of 1760m at sea level. The runway at Belp is 1730m.

So they can’t fully use the max range of 14-15’000km. The old jet had a range ~8’000km. Even if they take off with a 90% fuel load because of the runway, the new jet will go much farther than the old one. For most destinations, it will avoid a stopover, saving time and money.

By the way, the Bundesrat often flies commercial for cost reasons. Anyway, there’s one jet, so they can’t all use it at once.

Femicide is a specific type of homicide, under which women are killed because they are women i.e. the “fem” part relates to the motive, and only indirectly the victim’s characteristics. Honour killings are a good example of this.

So this is good for feminism because it explicitly recognises and protects against crime that is driven by misogyny.