It’s a little different because people complained, Pelosi (aka the party listened) acted.

I our current political system, the game theory just doesn’t work for much besides a two party system.

This is hard to verify on Google. What did he do?

Yield and volume are also very important factors.

They’d say “you have microwaves and cars. Just keep laboring. Things are great for you”

Lol jk

It’s almost like you can do BOTH.

No they are INSIDE the turkey. Read the headline!

Her Garmin: today’s suggestion, rest

Finally, Bear Grylls can now pretend to go to space but actually just stay at the Cape Canaveral Hilton

200 milli seconds a decade

You’d better ask her if she’s a cop. Wouldn’t want the internet to find out you have a fetish for the pigs.

Step one, have the best meal of your life *so far *

Better than squirt guns

(sad story, I know, but oddly similar to the story out of Barcelona this week…)

It’s also the FIXED portion. Everyone has seen people est and enjoy some times of red cherries. Yet, presumably, if you got new data showing drivers do actually pay attention and being a pedestrian was relatively safe you would adjust your beliefs.

A belief based on unbiased data (“being a pedestrian where I live is dangerous and this may be due to a lack of awareness by drivers”) is not the same as an unfounded, fixed belief based on no data, unrepresentative data, or data that does not reflect the root cause.

It went from a patriarchal normative, to being reclaimed. Are people down voting over the ambiguity of “polite”? Or because rediscovering the term “reclaimed” isn’t really a shower thought?

Sorry, I don’t think “driver” is a “type” of person for this purpose.

Maybe if you decided drivers are foolishly for being drivers and therefore in a different arena, say gambling, can easily be buffed against. “Drivers are risk takers and therefore it makes sense to bluff against them in poker”. That’s a stereotype.

To say drivers, while they are driving, don’t look cautiously enough, or whatever, you are simply making a statement about drivers. Not about drivers in a different context. Not about a type of person who in the situation is a driver… I don’t think it’s a stereotype. You’d either have to be unjustly discriminating against a type of driver or judging drivers in a context outside of driving.

From Oxford:

a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

Is a driver a type of person? Maybe. I think it’s generally prudent to be cautious as a pedestrian, regardless of the rationalization or mnemonic. I don’t think assuming drivers don’t see pedestrians is a stereotype. Maybe it is.

Fixed and oversimplified seems to be doing a lot of work here. “Don’t eat red berries, many red berries signify poison”. That’s an oversimplified idea.

“Asians are good at math”. An example of a positive stereotype, which are also corrosive to the people they are applied to.

a woman driver probably doesn’t see pedestrians

A negative stereotype that makes you sound sexist but also probably makes you more cautious as a pedestrian, but not as cautious as assuming any given driver could end your life.

Tldr: do you know what a stereotype is?

I’m Online and This Is Deep

I mean yeah. We all knew Robert’s wasn’t going to encourage Biden to prosecute Bush and Obama for drone strikes.

Where’s my husband? - desperate housewives of silicon valley