It's a long story. I was presenting at a conference, and my employer was not respectful of the separation between work and home. So I felt like I couldn't really... vacation... like a normal twenty something.
But the people I was interacting with were mostly fellow tourists... the few bartenders or whatever I had to talk to were nice folks.
(To give an example, someone from my hostel started bragging he was a Navy Seal, got mad I doubted that, then started telling everyone I was in the CIA, and then threatened to punch me when I said "would the CIA go smoke their brains out in the smoking room? Leave me alone")
TLDR: The Dutch are patient, guys from the Army lying about their MOS to an NGO worker not so much.
Not really, support for software, especially games are discontinued publicly all the time.
The real rule is not pissing off your customer base by taking important services offline while they still use that particular product. Doing so would be a PR blunder, and obviously effect sales of future products.
Sorry I think you misunderstood my point - if you want to continue providing a service to customers that runs online, then a one-time payment doesn’t work as a business model. The fact that they have to shut down game servers is a testament to that problem. At some point the costs exceed the revenue and it becomes unprofitable to honor the lifetime purchase.
French, PoC was originally a French term long ago, and was popularized again by MLK under a different context.
But beyond the history, which is interesting dont get me wrong, this is a moving goalpost. Once BIPOC becomes unacceptable, soon will its successor. All that matters is intent, I do not think _anyone_ here had the intent of disparaging any particular race, and to prejudicially think someone is using it that way counterproductive and regressive.
“BIPOC” labels people based on a hierarchy of perceived victimization by white people—with two specific groups given prominence as especially victimized. That’s a fucked way to come up with a label for people.
“BIPOC” people overwhelmingly don’t define their identity in terms of victimization by whites and don’t identify by that label. They identify instead with labels that reflect shared cultural, religious, national, or linguistic ties.
I think you are confusing the purpose and context of BIPOC. BIPOC is a broad and useful term used to discuss social topics that effect that group of people, that is also why it is an acronym, it's a broad classifier. I don't think anyone would ever identify as such directly.
For example, if we sat down and discussed my race, and you summarized it as just "Asian" that would be dismissive, there is much more detail to my identity. But using "Asian" to discuss issues regarding the larger
demographic, like health matters and employment is probably prefectly fine, and more efficient that listing each ethicity individualy. Doing so would be ineffective and exhausting.
If you really believe using general terms such as BIPOC is inappropriate, then stop using "whites" in your language. Who are these whites? Sweedes? British? Germans?...
> BIPOC is a broad and useful term used to discuss social topics that effect that group of people
It’s broad, but not useful. “BIPOC” encompasses everyone who isn’t white. Non-whites as a group don’t have much in common. For example, when it comes to “health” or “employment.” Asians live longer than whites and have better health outcomes in many respects. Asians are wealthier and poor Asians have far more income mobility than poor whites. Asians are half as likely to be shot by police and a third as likely to be incarcerated as whites. So when people talk about “BIPOC” with respect to economic inequality or criminal justice reform, it just doesn’t make sense as applied to Asians. Even with respect to Hispanics—they live longer than whites, and have equal income mobility and incarceration rates as whites. In terms of economics and health, Hispanics have much more in common with poor white immigrants (Italians, Irish) than other other “POC.”
I get the strong sense that “BIPOC” doesn’t arise out of a practical need for a label to discuss issues common to all non-whites, but instead the political desire to draw Hispanics and Asians into civil rights issues that uniquely effect black and indigenous people. That approach is not only insensitive to the actual interests of Hispanics and Asians, but contrary to those interests because, in reality, Hispanics and Asians have much more in common economically, etc., with other groups of immigrant origin (Italians, Irish, etc.) than they do with other “people of color.”
Occam's razor. I think the explanation for this treatment is much simpler, investment. Lots of these mainstream media corps probably have some interest in dammage control in crypto's price.. or they were being persuaded to be gentle by influential contacts in finance with intrest in stability. For instance, we know now Black Rock had a very significant stake in FTX. Its not totally crazy to think they might have reached out to Bloomberg or the Financial Times to keep the pressure off SBF.
Consider the alternative where the media "slammed" SBF on the daily, it would further discredit crypto and lead to a faster decline in value, therefore it would be harder for financial institutions to efficiently devest from crypto without significant losses.
Statisticaly no, the US is only 63% Christian, while Zambia is over 95%. Further I would argue that the actual american figure is lower due to Christianity's persistent cultural foothold in the country. If you count the number of people going to church weekly that figure is going to be much lower.
> Allowing smoking of marijuana wherever smoking of nicotine is allowed seems “only fair.”
I agree, in either tobacco or Marijuana, your not going to accidentally get high just existing in a smoking area. Marijuana however smells gross from a distance, I would be polite where you light up. Thats just common sense.
> I wouldn’t want to be driving on the road with someone after they smoked their very first cigarette. I remember...
As someone who had regularly done both, this is very wrong. First time smoking tobacco, yes I'd never want to drive in that state, but nicotine I would argue helps me pay attention, especially when driving for hours in a straight line. (Guess where I live) Marijuana however impaired me every time, and similar to alcohol I would never drive in that state.
I use Nicorette at work when I really need to focus, and I try to keep a consistent sleep schedule.