Yes but the difference is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that prolonged exposure to RF waves might possibly cause some harmful effects. The WHO didn’t categorize radio frequency radiation as a potential carcinogen based on no evidence at all:
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
The possibility of there being a link was not absurd, per se.
To be fair, the evidence about a link between cell phone radiation and cancer has been inconclusive for quite some time. After all, a series of inconclusive or null results doesn’t mean there is categorically no link – it could equally mean that more research is needed.
That said, I do agree that if there were a casual link in this case then it would have made itself apparent by now, given the huge increase in cell phone usage over the past few decades.
It was bad. Not sure it was quite as terrible as #3, but definitely bad.
But as I noted above, the average UK citizen is not in favor of strict immigration controls (legal or otherwise) and certainly not supportive of the recent riots.
Of those who are, the majority comes from lower-income areas that suffered the most under years of Tory austerity, which is understandable. But even then it’s really a case of the socioeconomic elites pointing the finger at immigrants rather than themselves.
As for the Muslim community, again there is good evidence to suggest that a lot of the fears you mentioned are unfounded. Surveys have shown that most feel that they belong in Britain and have no objections to integrating with the culture.
Again, the problem you tend to find is that extremists like Anjem Choudary are amplified by the press, giving the impressions that the Muslim community is incompatible with British values, when in fact the vast majority disagree with that statement.
It’s ironic you mention ‘reality’, since the hysteria surround immigration is largely based on misinformation and xenophobic propaganda being spouted by right-wing politicians and media for well over a decade. This has led to a highly distorted view of the scale and severity of the issue.
First off, the mass migration of peoples seeking refuge from war and other geopolitical disasters is a global issue rather than something that is unique to the UK, but even then the UK has taken in far fewer asylum seekers relative to other EU countries.
For instance:
Also, the UK population is actually pretty positive when it comes to immigration:
The paranoia about immigrants causing higher crime rates is also based on a myth:
All this is to say that a lot of the anger inflaming these racists riots come from a combination of political and media misinformation and many people’s innate prejudice towards non-Europeans.
Just don’t take it too seriously, I would say. Not every news piece from the same source is going to be of the same quality or bias.
When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.
These days, I’ll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.
I used to be a fan of it, but in the past couple of years I’ve seen MBFC rate sources as “highly credible” that are anything but, particularly on issues involving geopolitics. That, plus the inherent unreliability of attempting to fix an entire news outlet to a single point on a simple Left <-> Right spectrum, has rendered it pretty useless, in my opinion.
There days I’m much more of the opinion that it’s best to read a variety of sources, both mainstream and independent, and consider factors like
And so on. It’s much better this way than outsourcing your critical thinking to a third party who may be using a flawed methodology.
As someone who has lived in Thailand, I get why Thais were pissed. The hotel, the taxi, the public transport all look like they’re from 30 years ago. Yes, you do still find run-down buildings and tuk-tuks in Bangkok today, but it’s generally a lot more developed and modern than westerners expect on first arrival. Instead of showing the reality, the creators of this ad went out of their way to portray an outdated caricature.
To an outsider it might seem like nitpicking, but Thais are fed up with being presented this way to an international audience.
Being profoundly ignorant on a topic has never stopped him from tweeting about it.
Because he is the owner of the very platform that helped to stir up the recent neofascist riots in the UK that led to POC being attacked and terrorized and properties looted and burned. His tweets are seen by millions of people, and greatly contribute towards online extremism and polarization.
I’m not sure that lack of jeopardy was the issue with Furiosa – after all, that’s always the case with prequels.
I also don’t think that Day One introduced enough new developments to keep things interesting. The concept of the monsters is so simple that the main characters figure out the “rules” (don’t make noise) within minutes of the first attack. And that’s pretty much it - we, the audience, are none the wiser about what they are, where they come from, or what they’re about by the end of Day One than we were by the end of the second movie. Personally, I didn’t find the character development as interesting as Furiosa, either.
Either way, i agree that the quality of the story matters and I think Furiosa succeed here, personally.
If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say the differences in the box office outcomes come down to the facts that the Mad Max franchise has more of a niche appeal than A Quiet Place, is more violent, and the movie was quite a bit longer in duration.
Its success is interesting as it doesn’t appear to have suffered as a result of prequel fatigue, unlike, say, Furiosa, depsite being noticeably weaker than the first two movies.
General is for work visas, whereas Academic is for applying to university courses. Generally speaking.
You should always double check with the institution/company you’re applying to, though.
You said “sure” but then went straight back to the Opensecrets rankings… You’re glossing over the point.
AIPAC receives it’s donations from inside the US, from pro-Israel Americans. Because the group is funded by private donors rather than the Israeli government or a foreign group, it does not need to be registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, so less oversight is given to where the money comes from and how it is spent.
What other foreign nation lobbying group donates $14M to the opponent of a congressman and pays for attack ads against him to hurt his chances in an upcoming election? It’s unprecedented.
Also, it’s worth noting that AIPAC takes money from anybody who is Pro-Israel, whether they be Jewish or not. There more Zionist Christians that Jews in America, in terms of pure numbers.
Because
It’s that simple.
It’s not that simple; A court must rule that the action in question is an “official act”. As the SCOTUS intentionally declined to elaborate further on how this is defined, it will be up for the courts to decide what is and what is not covered by immunity.
Not that this couldn’t become subject to abuse and partisan rulings, but it’s more than just the presidental equivalent of
Or the EMF generators they carry around with them in their pockets, A.K.A their phones.
All true, but that doesn’t disprove my point. The risk was non-zero, so it was still worth investigating.