unicorn

These stories always make me want to roll my eyes. 🙄 Do we have a bunch of men who want money to just fall on them because they're good-looking? This comes straight out of the article: "Barrett Pall, a former model turned life coach and activist, said he felt pressured into attending an event in the Hamptons in 2011. Then 22, he said he was recruited by an older model, who received a referral fee, to be his "replacement" for "some sort of sexual experience" with the couple. He said he felt obliged to comply as the older man had been supporting him financially and he felt indebted. Like the other men, he said initially he attended a "test run" with Mr Jacobson. Mr Pall said the older model told him that "you don't have to do anything you don't want to do" but suggested that "the further you go, the better", and alluded to career opportunities. When he arrived at the event, he said he felt under pressure to "perform". "How was I going to leave? I didn't have a car," he said. "I had a chaperone sitting and watching me."...". Well, sir, you were a grown man who knew exactly what "some sort of sexual experience" meant. If you consented, you may have done so financial reasons, but you were a consenting adult nonetheless. New flash: a lot of people wouldn't go to work if they weren't being paid either. You were not a child. You were not drugged. This was a Saturday afternoon, apparently. You didn't have a car? Poor baby. Maybe you could do what the vast majority of New Yorkers/Long Island residents do: take the Long Island Railroad if you were late in understanding what "some sort of sexual experience" meant. And he makes his living being a life coach now? Please.

This all seems kind of silly. A replica will never be Angkor Wat, nor will it ever be a UNESCO World Heritage site. Maybe they'll make replicas of Machu Picchu or the Sphynx next. No one should care.

This is a very preliminary study that shows at best an association, not causation. As the authors of the study put it: "Studies assessing the long-term safety of erythritol are warranted." That's the most one can conclude from that study. It was not a randomized controlled trial, just an observational one. It's easy to show associations, but one can easily be fooled by observational studies. I would also add that many observational studies have shown very similar associations for just about every artificial sweetener out there. The association seems the same despite extremely different chemical compositions of these artificial sweeteners. The fact that the associations are similar but the chemistry is vastly different suggests the associations are linked to a different variable (for example, people who use artificial sweeteners may have similar otherwise unhealthful diets or exercise less). An easy way to understand the difference between association and causation would be to imagine a study observing over time people who carried matches or gas lighters. One would observe over the years that both matches and lighters have a similar association with the development of lung cancer in those who carry them. However, neither the matches nor the lighters are causative. Observational studies (which are cheaper and easier to conduct that clinical trials) can only serve to suggest directions for randomized clinical trials. A prospective observational (case-control) study can NEVER show causation.

That statement is so asinine. Obviously no one is free to say anything he wants to say. Freedom of speech entails freedom to express one's opinion. It does not mean freedom to lie, defraud, swindle, perjure, defame, incite riots, provide state secrets to a foreign power, slander, or any other kind of illegal speech. Yes, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie house, to incite injury to others, is an obvious example even a 6 year-old can understand. However, what people say often has to be regulated for societal good. Telling an election official "I want you to find me 12,000 votes" is another category of speech that is not protected, as it constitutes election fraud. How can anyone above the age of 7 not understand that?

Unfortunately, the Russian people still suffer from their centuries-long history. Russia has always been ruled by ruthless dictators (except Yeltsin). This has led the population believe they're best led by at least more effective ruthless dictators (ones who will keep goods, especially food, on the shelves). I had a boyfriend for over 13 years, who grew up in Russia (born USSR). Even after the fall of the USSR, his mother kept a statue of Lenin in her closet, in case communism came back.

I was looking at the list of GOP candidates, and the only ones I know are complete disasters (Trump, DeSantis, Pence, and Christie). I don't know the others (Scott, Haley, Ramaswamy). Are any of those three at least somewhat decent people?

What does your first sentence mean? Who knows the answer to that? I'm pretty confident, though, that where it ends is Putin's death. My suggestion is that NATO use its civilian-flagged ships to transport the food/grain from Ukraine, and warn Putin not to attack them. I feel it's unlikely Putin will attack those ships, but, if he did we'd not have too much trouble taking him out. And anyone would know that any use of nukes would mean we'd be saying "the country formerly known as Russia"... Putin is stupid and insane, but not to that extent. Someone will take out Putin eventually.

I can't imagine any circumstance in which there'd be a WWIII. If Putin were stupid enough to engage NATO, no one would back him up, not even Belarus or China. The Russian armed forces are a joke. Look how easily the mercenaries almost walked right into Moscow. Russia isn't even able to take down Ukraine. Russia wouldn't even be able to fend off Germany or France alone, were it not for supply-chain/logistics issues. It was barely able to fend off Turkey. You really think Russia could put up a fight with Germany, France, and Turkey together--not to mention the US, UK, Canada, Finland, Sweden? Absurd. Even someone as stupid as Putin knows damned well he can't win a fight with NATO.

I like Pita.

Putin's blocking of Ukrainian grain exports could again stoke marked rises in grain prices, with consequent effects on inflation and the world economy. It would seem that NATO countries could defuse that by announcing that ships registered with NATO countries would be transporting said grain. Any attack on ships from NATO countries would therefore trigger NATO involvement, which would probably result in Putin's demise. I don't think even Putin is crazy enough to attack ships from NATO countries. That would be tantamount to suicide.

Factually wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thérèse_Coffey "Thérèse Anne Coffey (born 18 November 1971) is a British politician serving as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since October 2022. A member of the Conservative Party, she previously was Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care but only from September to October 2022..."

If it's Trump vs Biden, one on one, Biden will probably win. Only hard-core Republicans will vote for Trump. Independents are the ones who determine election winners. If a moderate Democrat enters the race, Trump will probably win. Actually, almost any Democrat can swing the election to Trump. Due to the electoral college, one doesn't even need a plurality of votes to win. Even though he only garnered a tiny fraction of votes, Ralph Nader gave the election to Bush, Jr., with catastrophic results. Bush, Jr. won the election even though he didn't even have a plurality of the votes. Bush won by a handful of votes in Florida, which was all he needed. Now if Trump loses the Republican nomination but runs as a 3rd party candidate, the whomever the Republicans nominate will have zero chance of winning. 3rd party candidates can't win themselves, but they can steal enough votes to determine the election results.

Fortunately, the law often limits the fine print. The law has to limit underhanded insurance company schemes, otherwise each time we bought insurance, we'd have to hire a lawyer to go over the details and negotiate each contract. These policies generally run some 30 pages or so long and are written in legalese. Obviously, most people don't have the ability/means to go over everything each time they want to buy a travel policy. This is why we have laws--to limit sneaky insurance company tricks. Yes, insurance companies should be able to invalidate claims which result from the insureds' law violations, such as driving under the influence. However, one should not be able to invalidate a policy just because the insured had some drinks at his hotel. As others have mentioned, we lack enough details in this particular case to come to a judgment.

I usually get my insurance through https://www.insuremytrip.com/ They always ask age, country of travel, airline (if any), and cruise company (if any).

If the insurance was properly paid-for, it would probably be the insurance company's burden to prove why it shouldn't pay (at least if UK courts work similarly to US courts). If the hotel were negligent in its maintenance duties, or abiding to building codes, that would be irrelevant as to any case between the insured and the insurance company, since the insured doesn't own the hotel. Of course, if the hotel were negligent, then I suppose the insurance company could try to sue the hotel (in Thai courts), but good luck with that. I know that when I buy travel insurance, I'm asked to provide the destination country, airline I'll be taking, and so on. I assume that this is because rates differ between countries and airlines, depending on their risks (in part, for example, as to how well that country enforces building codes and airline safety regulations).

Well, I don't know about British law, but in the US, if you bought your policy in the US from a company which does business in the US, you could sue in US courts. I'm not sure if this would come under the state or federal court system, but if the company refused to pay your bills, you wouldn't have to rely on Thai courts. I think it comes under the regular, state courts, because when I've purchased travel insurance, there are pages devoted to differences in coverage depending on what state you're in.

Any decent insurance policy should cover an accidental fall. If he jumped over intentionally, either because he was showing off or feeling suicidal, then I could understand the insurance not paying. I don't know how things go in the UK, but if it were accidental and he were American, he could probably sue and win. I don't think the insurance company could prevail over some small-print technicality buried on page 12 that no coverage would be provided if he'd been drinking. Most people drink when they're on vacation.

I agree that the Declaration of Independence is poorly worded. Obviously, we're not all created equal, thank goodness, although hopefully we should all be entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law.

In case anyone here was unaware, Meat Loaf was a Trump supporter, climate change denier, and Covid-19 denier/antivaxxer. He reportedly died from complications of Covid-19 himself.

They may not be as good as some of the top foreign airlines, but Delta appears to have the best on-time arrival data among North American airlines. I usually fly American Airlines, but occasionally I do fly Delta, which is generally overall rated the best US carrier (American not that far behind).

Well, the rarest blood group is AB-, but those people can receive blood from any donor who's Rh-negative (for example A-, B-, O-). There isn't really a "rare" blood group, since the percentage of donors from each group will probably equal the percentage of those needing the blood. What is true is that O- is in greatest demand. This is because if someone needs an emergency supply of blood, and there isn't time to type and cross, one must give from O-, the only universal donor. In any case, this story doesn't ring true for me.

That's actually not a joke. It's reality! https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tucker-carlson-firing-at-fox-news-draws-comment-from-russian-foreign-minister-lavrov-and-ostensible-job-offer-from-rt-d048ee9e https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tucker-carlson-russian-state-tv-job-offer-b2327099.html

Any lawyers here know if that's true? I find that difficult to believe.

It lasts for 2 months. So be aware--if you get side-effects, you're stuck with them for 2 months...

One of the problems with US elections, is that Democrats tend to nominate those that are too far left, while Republicans nominate right-wing nuts, so one is left with voting for the lesser of two evils. California did a great thing when they switched to a primary system in which the top two vote-getters from both parties face off in the general election. This is how the east bay area of the SF Bay finally got left-wing Pete Stark out of office, and moderate Democrat Eric Swalwell in, for the largely Democratic district. Sure enough, in the primary Pete Stark had a plurality, but when the majority of the district was given the choice, they went with moderate Swalwell (who's done a great job!). California's 15th congressional district election, 2012 Primary election Party Candidate Votes Democratic Pete Stark (incumbent) 39,94342. Democratic Eric Swalwell 34,34736. No party preference Christopher "Chris" J. Pareja 20,61821 Total votes 94,908100. General election: Democratic Eric Swalwell 120,38852, Democratic Pete Stark (incumbent)110,64647. Total votes231,034100. Democratic hold