letsgo

Can you cite any peer reviewed studies that show scientific thinking necessarily leads away from omnivory?

Reminds me of the time I had to explain to a friend that twat was not a synonym for twit.

Sounds great and all but I always wonder how that works out in practice. It's not like a miner owning his own pick. Wikipedia says Apple has assets of $352.58 billion and a workforce of 161,000. That's about $2.2M per employee.

If a worker were to leave Apple, what would happen to their share? Would they be forced to sell it back to the other employees? After all, they would then be a non-worker and no longer eligible to own any of the company. Assuming they sold their complete share at the full value would they then keep that $2.2M?

If a new worker were to join Apple, how would they acquire their share? Would they have to find $2.2M before they could start? Or would their ownership build over time, and at what rate? How long would it take for their share to build?

If a company were to have a bad year where operating expenses exceed income, would the workers be paid anything? Or would those in trouble have to sell some of their share, and to whom?

Yes and no. Everywhere "Western" has an extradition treaty with the USA so there's no point fleeing to any of those. Russia isn't a great choice but if he values his freedom it's probably the least worst option.

But you DO have a PhD. Claiming it is somehow not valid is a criticism of the establishment that awarded it to you. You're just suffering from impostor syndrome, that's all.

Also, no employer will consider someone fresh out of education, even someone with a PhD, to have vast quantitites of useful real-world experience, so even declaring a PhD won't see you land your first job with the expectations that you'll ace every bit of it from day one.

It's good that you realise you know nothing. That is both accurate and useful. But don't take it too far. What your PhD proves is that you have an ability to learn, understand and communicate, and THAT is what employers are looking for.

For extra points, write some random almost coherent stuff, ROT13 it then steganographise it into those dick pics.

There are in fact at least two alternative explanations on this: (1) Paul is issuing a general decree that in absolute terms means women must never have authority in any situation ever at any time; (2) this is a local issue specific to Israel at the time because Jews believed women shouldn't have authority, and the Church allowing them to would bring it into disrepute, so this was fitting in with the local society. The second interpretation also ties in with Paul's "all things to all people" teaching. Also Paul in other places specifically notes the difference between "I, not the Lord...", and "The Lord, not I...", and this line states "--I-- do not permit...", suggesting this is from Paul rather than an ultimate directive from above.

It's like one of those irregular verbs. I've got a cool fantasy, you're a pervert, he's in jail, etc.

Sounds like it's not just me that goes "ok then, try arguing with this" when power cycling an unresponsive computer.

Not everyone is immune to swearing; I don't see any point in causing unnecessary offence; and they contribute nothing to the meaning, except perhaps voicing a level of emotion which can be better expressed in other ways.

Old man yells at Swift: wait, are we talking about Trump or Putin here?

Toyota Cymru