No he didn't, there was at least one guard taking care of the animal. Don't make shit up. you're sensationalizing a situation to create a narrative that isn't true. He's bad enough based on the truth. Don't give the opposition ammunition.
https://nypost.com/2021/02/19/ted-cruz-left-pet-poodle-home-alone-during-cancun-trip-report/
Or just grifting. He needs to raise money
That's just a bell curve. It's a normal distribution.
In order to see the Dems move policy left, we need a ranked choice voting system of some type where you can actually vote for the candidate you want without throwing it away if they don't win.
That definitely could be true. My first reaction here is that it will be dependent on the 2 species. Every sentient species pairing combo would be different because it largely depends on how much the less advanced species is capable of comprehending. That gap between the species along with the absolute intelligence of each of them both matter.
I don't quite know if I think it only works if there is parity because there has to be some room for agency for the "dumber" species if they are sufficiently ontelligent. It might be such that a species is smart enough or advanced enough to understand the risk they are taking despite not understanding the act itself.
But I'm not sure how set I am in that because I can imagine problems depending on the "advanced" species capability. What if they can inject the right combo of chemicals into your brain to make you love them no matter what they do to you....that could go bad quickly. Certainly that wouldn't be moral, but there are situations imaginable that are far less extreme then that which would be fine.
I think In that scenario that you are describing there is an imbalance in the sexual encounter. I feel that there is a way to approach it in a way that alien explains the consequences, but that would depend highly on what the objective reality of the encounter would entail for the human. (I say human assuming that the human is the one unaware and/or new to the metaphysical experience presented to them by the alien partner.). In a way, I think the human has to agree to accepting unknown consequences.
I think that as long as we pass this test from their perspective then it's fine
We have to convey the 3 check boxes to one another.
It doesn't matter who is more advanced as long as both species can answer yes to all 3 questions
I had the same problem with long indentations when reddit was new and you'd get to the end of a comment chain and see a reply to something wasyy up top.
Got used to it quick after I learned about collapsing threads
See this interview Jill Stein did that's viral right now of her refusing to call Putin a war criminal despite easily saying it about netenhayu (5:30 start)
https://youtu.be/h1JUMeWaBVg?si=TbuHDikEtN0HGVHb
She's not allowed to or her dark money dries up.
There a dinner where she's at the table with him.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696
This is only half the picture. The other half is the repeal of schedule f (I think) where the federal government hires people to serve as experts of a subject rather than working for the administration. Project 2025 wants to reclassify thousands of government jobs to allow them to be appointed but the president. Imagine NOAA, not gone, but rather ran by maga loyalists or scientists who have to shut up or lose their jobs. And tons of other places too like the epa, OSHA, nrc, and more
You know, I've never thought about this. I know there are some things that scientists from different nations work together on even if the countries don't like each other much (like the ISS and cern) but I've never thought about the weather.
That'd be insane to privatize weather data but I'm sure that's what they want to do because they can charge for it.
I don't think it's right to divorce the censorship from the result just because the justification is different.
What I mean is that even though that conditioning is taking place for a banal reason it's still true that it's conditioning and will affect the acceptance of moves like this debate fact checking decision that are serious and do have consequences. So therefore it still matters and is still dangerous.
I feel the same way man, I'm so excited about this tech because of the few use cases that we will discover and will change our lives and cause a paradigm shift...but it will be controlled by someone who is ultra rich (a person or corp) so that's awful. And there is a ton of stuff that is a grift that will die off and gives it a bad name so I temper my excitement of it around most people because it's unpopular to root for the tech.
Why are people down voting this bot? It's a good service assuming it isn't some partisan plot to lie to us