Yes? That's why loans with collateral charge a lower interest rate than unsecured loans.
You say this:
interpreting casualty numbers that a militant group releases with clear propaganda intent in a light most favorable to them...
but just said this:
Statistically, half their forces are minors.
Pull the other one. If all you wanted was for people not to interpret casualty numbers "in a light most favourable to Hamas" you'd be acknowledging how high the death toll is while making your point instead of trying to distract from it.
There is no need to "play devil's advocate" - if you believe something, argue for it. If you don't believe something but think I'm missing something, you can point it out and make a case for why it's important without being confusing about what you actually believe.
All evidence I have seen is that Hamas does not systematically use child soldiers. We can see the indiscriminate tactics of the IDF; we can put that together with the high death toll to make a reasonable conclusion that vast numbers of civilians have been killed. You're trying to cast doubt on this idea but the amount of doubt is akin to flicking water from your fingers onto a housefire.
Most of the death toll is women and children (7k and 10k, respectively). Even if you assume all men killed are Hamas fighters, which is not true, that is very high when compared to the attack which triggered the war.
The requirement to not track users with cookies does not extend to cookies that make the site work in the first place, such as those which track your login session, or your refusal of other cookies.
They analysis shows that, were the last election fought on the new constituency boundaries, the Conservative majority would be 14 seats larger. It also reveals that the swing to Labour required for the party to achieve an overall majority increases by 0.7 percentage points from 12.0 to 12.7.
So this is less representative. However, you'd be hard pushed to find anything that really looks like clear gerrymandering.
It had two buildings. Is that difficult to understand or what? Historically they were separate schools built close together. (Probably a boys and girls school but I don't remember)
Each had a main part that was a single corridor on 4 floors with classrooms off it. There were extra bits that weren't part of the main corridor, too, which weren't as tall, and the main part also wasn't all classrooms; in one building the bottom floor was, I think, just toilets and changing rooms, then admin offices, and only then were there classrooms, but I can't remember for sure. In the other building there were 3 complete floors of classrooms and I think one half floor, with the rest of the bottommost floor occupied by a gym.
Surely any kid who went to only one high school is going to have, at the time, thought it was perfectly normal because that's all they knew? I think our school had 4 floors in both buildings
Tesla is headquartered in an ally of the EU; BYD isn't. Maybe Tesla's subsidies are a problem to the EC - I don't know. But you're looking at it in a slightly simple way, as if it's very important that this process needs to be fair.
It doesn't need to be fair; it needs to be good for the EU. Is it good for the EU to impose tariffs on subsidised Chinese vehicles coming in (if indeed they are subsidised)? Quite possibly. (Quite possibly not: how important is it to have a big car manufacturing industry, versus your population having cheaper cars?) Whether it would also be good to impose tariffs on Tesla vehicles is also a valid question to ask, but those questions don't have to have the same answer.
The article doesn't suggest it's impossible. It's difficult because you have to build up a competitive business from nothing in addition to the one you're already building up.
It's like any number of blog hosts that have gone before it.
Absolutely true that this isn't covered enough - the cuts were massive. They've also only been topped up by increases to regressive council tax, so it's yet another way the Tories are worsening inequality through tax.
But the important question at the end - what the next, presumably Labour, government will do about it - seems unanswerable. It's not just that Labour are now allergic to saying they'll spend money. It's also that paying debt interest is now a significant expense due to higher interest rates and our economy is barely growing, so taking on government debt no longer makes financial sense.
The Tories have done the opposite of fixing the roof while the sun was shining - they neither reduced public sector debt nor did they reinforce our services by investing cheap money into them. Now we're left with the consequences and I don't see how anyone can fix it.
If the US said they were going to stop providing military support and tech it may well stop it...
Thanks for the SciHub link, but it doesn't say what you're saying it does. It says that a particular kind of upbringing predicts a discrepancy between self-reported sexuality and a measure of "implicit sexuality." They further found a relationship between self-reported straightness and homophobia when "implicit sexuality" was measured as "more gay".
Leaving aside the fact that (in my quick read-through, at least) although there was a lot of effort given to validating that this measure measured something, there was little effort given to validating that it measured sexuality, this correlation does not allow one to conclude that "those who profess anti-gay views are likely to be gay themselves" which is the distillation of what was expressed above. Let us start from someone who professes those views. The research means that, if you know this detail of their upbringing and if you know that they explicitly identify as straight (not the same thing as public identification) then you can predict (with clear statistical significance, but still quite low correlation) that that person scores highly on this measure of "implicit homosexuality".
If you check the summary table you can actually just read off the correlation coefficient between homophobic views and the measure of implicit homosexuality and see that it's not statistically significant.
And I do think that the measure of implicit sexuality, though clearly interesting and measuring something is equally clearly not a measure of "are you gay regardless of what you say about yourself." It's reasonable to believe we can use it to estimate homosexuality, but it's like measuring distance with a ruler where all the markings have been scraped off. So even if a study like this did have a correlation with its measure, you then would have to mute the strength of that correlation by the strength of correlation between the measure and the underlying reality we're interested in.
Fair enough, I genuinely misread and thought that was within the quotation marks. But her message is still wrong because she is still talking about AI in general, but her argument applies only to a) AI whose data is derived from data scrapers like Facebook or b) AI put to surveillance tasks. That does not apply to Stable Diffusion, which is why I mentioned it, but it is caught by her assertion, "AI is a surveillance technology."
I think you've missed my assertion, which is that this is an example of confirmation bias. Listing examples of that confirm what I'm claiming is confirmation bias isn't saying much. What about the thousands of people coming out as gay who haven't got a history of anti-LGBT shit? Well they aren't as interesting so you don't remember them when you read such an article.
Your link is broken, but consider this: human beings are perfectly capable of hating one another for any difference, real or perceived. We don't doubt that racism is down to hatred of the other, rather than the self, we don't doubt that sexism is the same. Why is homophobia any different? Only because there is the potential for someone to be secretly gay.
I know what conservative women consider to be “respect,” and was applying their standards to this subject. Even by their absolute bottom of the barrel expectations, men are letting them down in this case.
Do you think the conservative women who appeared in the calendar agree with you? I would guess they don't. So it seems to me your understanding of the spectrum of opinion is clearly missing something.
Maybe your views on this are out of whack because of spending "huge amounts of time" in a community with a view of conservatism skewed by their unique experiences? That's not a knock against doing so or against those people, just that fundies have particularly extreme experiences of politics and religion which is bound to mean you hear a lot of outliers.
so this “division” is really just a disagreement about how they want to be disrespectful - via mildly titillating pictures, or via religious control.
I am not conservative but I don't think looking at mildly titillating pictures of women is disrespectful, and I think that's an opinion which is pretty common across the political spectrum in the West.