*dessert

It's almost entirely medically irrelevant, and the times in which it becomes medically relevant you need to go to a doctor to manage the transition and they can explain to you the times where you need to disclose it (practically never).

It doesn't matter whether we believe her or not, it just matters that Trump has the sliver of doubt for his supporters to latch onto to ignore reality. Then if Democrats try to say, "why aren't you upset that there are no Republicans or Trump being accused, this is obviously a coverup", MAGAs can pivot to, "you're just trying to stop your guys from being prosecuted. See, you're the *real pedophile supporters, not us!"

Yeah, this is kind of like "well, we poisoned the water, but we've decided to give out water bottles for free". And they spin it as a triumph of the human spirit or something That's not a positive, that's just like... The bare minimum to avoid mass death, and it's not even a real fix

Security reasons = We're too insecure to show that we only have two dinghies and a paper boat left.

If you mean some Israelis want the world to collectively view them as a genocidal state of racists and murderers (or at least racist and murderer apologists), I mean, sure, perhaps some do, but I can't fathom why they would, and I don't think that's particularly common given how widespread their propaganda campaigns go to push the narrative that they're the good guys.

No let’s keep focusing on Epstein

Why are these people tolerated in events for global treaty negociation? It's obvious they're only there to undermine regulations and apparently harass experts on the topic. Update: I should have read the article before commenting. UNEP has no policy to prevent conflit of interest, and lobbyist are buying influence every way they can.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson has referred allegations of mistreatment to El Salvador's government, while the U.S. Department of Homeland Security dismissed the allegations of abuse on Tuesday, calling the men "criminal, illegal gang members." That's not at all addressing the allegations; rather, it's bald-faced othering that makes the abuse a nonissue.

I cry for the world that could have been, if Tor and Monero gained widespread adoption

Conservative lawmakers have also done their best to attack the policy. During one speech during a debate about quotas, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro — the son of the former far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro — asked, “What about poor whites?” Whataboutism runs in the family, uh. That said, there are also quotas for those. For example, I'll coarsely translate an excerpt from Paraná's Federal University's site: Thus, there are four quota groups: Public school students, regardless of income; Public school students, with household income lower than 1.5 minimum wages per capita; Black [pretos], mixed [pardos], and indigenous [indígenas] students, regardless of income; Black, mixed, and indigenous students, with household income lower than 1.5 minimum wages per capita. Relevant to note low and mid-low classes study almost exclusively in public schools. Some anecdote. My uni (the above) implemented quotas in '05; by then I was in my first grad, so I remember it well. Criticism sprouted from all sides, including black people - like one student saying she was glad she was admitted in '03, so nobody would think she did it "through the backdoor" (pela porta dos fundos). To be fair with her, back then nobody actually knew how it would turn out. Two decades later, though, we see the quotas help by a lot. It's also relevant to note that, in Latin America, racism piggybacks on classism; while in Canada and USA I feel like it's the opposite. In other words, I think the primary source of prejudice here is social class. This should explain where both Flávio Bolsonaro's "whataboutism" and that student's comment come from.

I would love some extra sources for this. A quick reading of the article makes me understand that the researchers have a lot of confidence in the correctness of the AI gradings of policies, which I have my doubts about. The article worries about the fact that the energy policies score worse than expected, but this assumes that these scores are valid in the first place. There is lots of interesting research happening in trying to use AI for varying problems, but in each case results go from bad to promising, but never outright certainty. The fact that this article almost immediately gives the vibe that the AI results are trustworthy and a valid and desired alternative to the slow human analysis really rubs me the wrong way.

Not sure what they are talking about. Maybe sarcastic. The podcast mentioned various actors were spreading fake AI generated "official" reports within days.