Yeah, I don't know if the issue is the FTC's choice of battles. I think Europe's success is due to a system that is less beholden to big corporations. FTC's failure is due to a failure within the American government.
The judge for the Microsoft vs. FTC legal battle made a decision based on the idea that 10 years is a long time... To me, this is a comical statement. 10 years is a blink of an eye. What do we think is gonna happen once ten years has passed?
The reality is Uber, grubhub, doordash, etc. are owners of a platform that connects customers to contract delivery services. They don't directly employ delivery persons. Their product is this platform. This is why they are considered tech companies.
I thought it takes a man and a woman to make a child. In addition, in many countries, both the man and woman can take leave when they have a child.
These sorta points greatly weaken your argument. You using child care as an alternative explanation towards why woman may make less is likely a symptom of the bias women face in the job market.
"Notably, Navy Federal approved a slightly higher percentage of applications from White borrowers making less than $62,000 a year than it did of Black borrowers making $140,000 or more."
I don't know man. Like, I agree that data is missing, but the data they did pull is very damning. Like how is there a higher approval % of white applicants making less than half the yearly salary of black applicants?
I actually dont think testing this hypothesis is as easy as you think. You can't just control for social biases when analyzing marathon data because these social biases are longitudinal. At a young age, women quickly learn from modern society that they are physically inferior to men. Because of this, the best bet for testing this hypothesis is to look at ancient societies, because these societies are largely independent from our modern society.
Yeah, that's my suspicion too. If more gen z are using the internet compared to boomers, then it makes sense that more of them would fall for scams.
Curious.
What are the incentives for the drivers to pull this time saving maneuver rather than doing it the right way?
I really hate when people make this claim that humans are inherently greedy. I usually find that the people who believe in this are greedy people who want to believe that it's natural. It's a way for them to feel less guilty about a quality that can be deemed unsavory.
It doesn't take much to find evidence that goes against this claim. Buddhist monks who take vows of poverty, teachers who teach to help children despite low salaries, family members who spend money to help other family members, true Christians who follow the footsteps of Christ, and the list can continue.
In addition, consider this, almost all of animalia on Earth takes only what they need. Lion prides aren't hunting prey to the brink of extinction. Bees take only what they need to maintain a healthy hive. Historically, most Native American tribes only took from the land what they needed to live.
No, humans are not inherently greedy... Humans are inherently adaptable. This is something all animalia shares. And currently, our societal systems rewards those who make and hold onto the most money that they can. What this means is most of the "successful" people in our society are likely somewhat greedy. This causes some of us to believe that greed is necessary to survive, but most of us focus on being happy and having enough money to maintain that happiness. Money promises security, and security helps keep people happy; but you don't need to be a multi-millionaire in order to be secure.
Estrogen is also a hell of a drug... It's actully a point in the article that people give testosterone too much credit and estrogen not enough credit when it comes to how they affect the physique.
Your argument being founded on the effects of testosterone is not a good one...
Consider the flipped version of the same question: "Was Earth the only planet in the universe that was able to conceive life?"
If the answer to this question is "Yes", then our universe would not be fit for life, and we wouldn't exist either.
I think we really gotta stop lying to ourselves when we say "it's a good way to stay in touch with people". It's a way to stay in touch, but most of the shit you see on Facebook these days have little to nothing to do with the people you actually care about.
There are much better ways to stay in touch with others. For example, friend or family discord communities is a far superior way when compared to any Meta platform.
As a high school physics teacher, if this is the hill you're willing to die on, then you neither understood the content in your high school physics class nor your university physics class. Newton's 2nd law is generally accurate in most scenarios even without simplifications.
Yes, like you stopping to peddle your bike...
A simple force diagram and application of newton's 2nd law predicts the bike should accelerate to the left while it's velocity is towards the right. This means the bike should slow down.
Not with that attitude.
Remember when you had to get your friends and family to use Facebook? I do. Most (may be all) social media platforms are opt in. People are not born with a Facebook account.
This is not a reason, but rather a means to absolve yourself from engaging with a platform you know is toxic.
I don't think I'm arguing against your evidence. It's your idea that this difference in men and women's strength is simply explained by a difference in testosterone. This claim does not nullify the questions posed in the article.
Both biology and the environment play roles in defining people's personality and physique. Higher testosterone is only a piece of biology's role, but it's only loosely related to environment's role. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to claim society's artificial rules placed on women might have had an effect on women's physique through things like sexual selection. This is why scientists still explore these things.
In that case, there may be a flaw in argument. Your anecdotal story doesn't disprove their point. The moment you started powerlifting training for 3 months, you've already became stronger than the average male. Most men on Earth don't do any sort of strength training, and it's not unreasonable to think that these men are not much stronger than the average woman.
It feels a but ridiculous that you are using "less work hours due to pregnancy and childcare" as your primary explanation for why women make less over multi-decades long career.
Women go on pregnancy leave for months. How can this explain less pay for years of working?
On point. Everytime these kind of studies are posted, the bros always have some low key sexist comments which try to explain why the study is wrong... It happens a lot in the scientific community as well. Yet, all you need to do is speak to a few women in the field to understand just how hostile some of these Stem communities can be towards women.