Unfortunately whichever party is in power is incentivized to be in favor of biasing the process toward themselves, both parties choose to keep gerrymandering even though it’s obviously voter suppression.

This is also why neither of them will support ranked choice/instant run-off voting.

Imagine the mental gymnastics required to decide continuous monitoring of yourself in intimate spaces is more private than the chance a trans person could use a stall in the same bathroom.

I think most people would agree that it does matter how rare it is.

Even if imperfect, ranked choice voting would give voters considerably more voice than they have now. That could be used to, for example, vote in another method in the future.

Don’t be too relieved. There’s a bill banning RCV that passed the Texas Senate and is being considered by the House: https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1751192

deleted by creator

Nothing is wrong with trees, but the microalgae CO2 capture rate is 50x higher````` .

Sanders is a rare voice for progressive, prosocial reform in the US. His policy positions resonate with many of us who feel that government should support ordinary people at least as much as the obscenely wealthy.

But beyond that, he’s genuine and his messaging has been consistent for decades. You can literally find images of him being arrested fighting for social justice in the 60’s.

Also he’s sharp and nearly every time he makes a point he drops the facts to support it.

Oh look, he literally just led a motion to block arms sales to Israel last week

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-senate-overwhelmingly-votes-down-sanders-motions-to-block-arms-sales-to-israel/

It goes to whoever can provide Bitcoin. So, likely an exchange. Which ultimately gives the money to people selling Bitcoin. Many of whom are in North Korea and Russia.

Crypto investment is very risky. Too volatile. Too virtual. No protection against theft/fraud. Also a govt should really invest in companies in its own jurisdiction.

I think this question could be interpreted in many ways, but typically education is correlated with more religious participation.

For Mennonites specifically, education is one of their core values. They also did a study on what matters most to their members that you can check if you’re interested: https://www.mennoniteusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/MC-USA-Report-FN-compressed-1.pdf

Personally, I think a lot of their belief system and activism efforts just make sense and appeal based on their own merits.

There are many kinds of Mennonites. Most that I know are pretty scientific and well-educated.

Behind a shattered door, the adventurers find a tent, bags of gear, smouldering fireplace, and smell roasting mutton. It seems abandoned only seconds ago, but on closer inspection the tent is mouldering, the gear mostly rusted through, and the fireplace only ancient charcoal.

(A party of adventurers passed through 20 years before, and were ambushed and dragged off to be eaten in the dead of night. Their ghosts remain, giving a semblance of life to the camp as they relive their final moments)

That seems fair

Thanks for the quote, but it’s still not a cut to the grant itself.

Believe it or not, I also think university research depts should continue to exist and that major budget shortfalls due to this are not in our best interest.

Hope your abrasive remarks are making you feel better.

If my statement was wrong, feel free to correct it. But based on reading the article, this change is not a “cut” to grants as you indicated in your title.

Will this change cause significant disruption? Almost certainly. But there’s an argument to be made for the change, namely that NIH grants should support the science rather than the university and that university overhead costs should be subsidized in some other way.

This isn’t a cut (yet), it’s a budgetary allocation requirement. It matches what is already required by most private non-profits.

The billboard says many women are raped by the ppl guiding the illegal border crossings.

As of March 2024, El Salvador’s bitcoin gambit stood at a 50% profit, with bitcoin having recorded a new all-time high of over $69,000. --the article

If you believe the virus came from the Wuhan center and that was covered up, how could you trust a scientist from there to truthfully make this report? They could have just omitted a match to SARS-CoV2 if they found one.

Probably this needed to be published but it seems like a lose-lose proposition for the researchers and I doubt it will give conspiracy theorists a pause.

Yeah and the senators who ratified women’s right to vote were all elected by men but they still did the ethical thing.

At least Sanders seems to want to reduce billionaires’ disproportionate influence on politics.

Maybe you’re ok if Elon Musk’s opinion on how much you should get taxed counts a billion times more than yours, but you really shouldn’t be.