There's a very good reason why the US was absolutely jazzed to start sending resources and weapons to Ukraine when Russia started shit. They are not friendly, and never have been.
Just an observation, humans aren't able to navigate heavy snow and disorganized traffic any better. We guess where the road should be, what the conditions are, and where other cars are, and commit with full confidence in our lack of knowledge. It works OK, but there are infinity examples of it not working. Literally any logic behind navigating these scenarios is better that what we can do with our feeble meat suits.
Of course, I see your point, and I see the disconnect we have here! To simplify my stance, I wouldn't want to rule out animal by-products as a food category, as those can be valuable calories to people in places where farming might not be feasible for all their nutrition needs. That said, and to your point, traditional animal by-product might not be included. As you mentioned, industrial egg production, milk production, or honey production (in places that don't naturally support honeybees) are not likely candidates for sustainable food sources.
Ah, I see I didn't say the silent part out loud. I didn't mention animals specifically because meat production is stupidly bad for the environment, so incorrectly assumed that was a given. I was specifically saying veganism isn't inherently better than a vegetarian diet, not eliminating technical animal by-product like honey. I suppose there isn't a term for "things that vegans won't eat because technically an animal by-product, but still not terribly bad for the environment, at least not any worst than growing other vegetables on an induatrial scale". Think things like cricket flour. Not vegan, but not ecologically bad either.
Is nuclear a bad option? Only downsides I've heard are basically optics problems. Barring facilities that catastrophically failed on top of horrid safety policy negligence, they seem perfectly suited for baseline power production.
Veganism isn't inherently better for the environment. You're looking for sustainable agriculture. End goal would be a hydroponic grow tower, powered by renewables. Perfect growing conditions year round with little to no runoff. Doesn't work for all crops currently, and takes a ton of power to operate, though.
Tuition in Canada is subsidised by the provincial government for citizens. The cost is also regulated by the provincial government. Those two amounts differ from province to province. For instance, in Alberta when UCP clawed it's way back into power, they decided to cut funding to post secondary, and imposed tuition caps that prevented cost recovery. Our university had to lay off hundreds of people, and we're still not operating within 80% full staff.
A student at full course load can expect to pay about $10K per year, depending on the university, if they are a citizen. Otherwise, foreign students on a visa will be in the $25k-35k bracket. UofA specifically quotes about $33k. I can't speak on what tuition in the states looks like, but I've heard numbers much closer to the latter example with more frequency.
At our university, we give students a list of 6 possible usernames based on what's available and which algorithm used to generate the name. Work pretty well, and sometimes people get really cool ones. They can change their username between their choices at will, again based on availability.
Last night, my wife and I ordered Chinese for Valentine's Day. Cost $100. Tried to tip the delivery guy a $20, and he turned it down lol. He then gave my cat a temptations treat, out of a freshly opened bag he had in his pocket. Dude was amazing!
I... Yes. Yes these are all problems. Yes, they should all be addressed. You're being incredibly disingenuous with your arguments, and allow me to add, heavily condescending by your liberal use of the term "boys" in this context. I legitimately don't believe you're capable of arguing in good faith about this. But, in closing, allow me to speak plainly. To wit, a false accusation with actions behind it functionally ends a life. The life of the accused ends that day. They may continue living, but no longer in the same capacity. We should have a higher bar than a single party accusation to end the life of another. If you do not believe that to be the case, then that speaks volumes more about your mindset than the issue at hand.
YES! WE SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT FALSE MURDER ACCUSATIONS ARE YOU INSANE?
"Some of you will be wrongly convicted, but that's a risk I'm willing to take." shouldn't be the goal my dude. You've gotta try harder. Don't just believe women. Believe evidence. Believe facts. Leave hearsay out of it. This is not a difficult concept.
I put some gel drops on my eyes, and could have sworn it was the Orcs Must Die logo
Normally I'd agree, but the glass just gets real cold when it's -40 outside. Condensation freezes on it.
I still get frost on the inside of my double paned windows up here in the great white north. No joke, windows are engineered to hell here
Animal trials are important in medicine and science as a whole, and casualties happen. We have ethics standard to minimize suffering and loss. Especially when doing primate trials. They are generally treated as humans would be in an emergency experimental procedures. If you lose a few, it's acceptable, so long as suffering was suppressed, and all reasonable avenues to save the animal were explored. Also, primates are hella expensive, so you generally can't afford to kill them on a whim.
No, animal trials aren't the problem. It's that the company basically disregarded these practices. Last I heard (and this was last year), they burned through 15+ primates out of 23 test subjects. These creatures suffered fungal and bacterial infection, were left to tug at the implant leads causing damage to their tissue and the device, had the device fail during implantation and had broken pieces lodged in the primate brain for over a week before deciding to euthanize. Absolute carelessness, and disrespect for these poor creatures.
UK leading by example then. But riddle me this, how often is a firearm needed for an officer doing their everyday duties? Traffic stops, patrols, responding to calls. How often is it explicitly needed to be actively carrying a loaded firearm to a inherently non violent situation before having assessed it? I honestly have no idea. Is the expectation in the US that you'll just get straight up murdered for doing your job? Is that how you guys live?
A more reasonable use for a firearm has never been stated. Random people roll up to your house and murder your husband. Clearest case of self defense there has ever been.
UK police only carry a baton and pepper spray my dude. Last I checked, they weren't hurting for recruitment.