I interpreted that as for soups and stews. Peel the clove and plop it in. Once the cooking is done, take it out, like you would do with a bay leaf.
I personally would never use garlic that way. I absolutely put it crushed into my stews. But that's how I read the image.
My original comment? I just answered your question as to what that other commenter meant by "amendment 2." I didn't say anything else? Did you not want someone else to answer your question and only want that commenter to?
Yep, I definitely think the whole phrasing of that comment is unusual. I understand the basic facts they are stating, but not the point of stating them.
The right to bear arms.
Men's rights to what, exactly? There are plenty of rights that affect men that vary state to state. Off the top of my head I can think of firearm rights that vary dramatically state to state. Or are we talking about rights exclusive to men because of different biology between men and women? I feel like other than a vasectomy, I'm not sure what other male-biology-related rights I have. Honestly there's less technology related to reproduction on the male side.
I get the point of the message, that there are rights women should be universally guaranteed that aren't, and I totally agree with that message. But the phrasing seems ambiguous at best.
I don't know. People keep talking about what to do when we "make it out of this" like the whole situation was thrust upon us by nature, and we just have to wait and tough it out until it passes, like a storm. People made this happen. The people with wealth and power in our society chose this reality for the rest of us. They aren't just going to stop one day. And they aren't acting like this is a storm that will pass. They are acting like this is the next step in a transition they want and intend. We have to figure out how to instigate a change from this path, and I don't know how to do that.
To be clear, this isn't a right they had and Congress just took it away. This was proposed, and after heavy lobbying from the defense industry, was removed from the final legislation. Right to repair, especially in the military, has broad bipartisan support, and broad public popularity. So it's another example of minority moneyed interests in Washington beating out the majority.
We’re about to face a crisis nobody’s talking about. In 10 years, who’s going to mentor the next generation? The developers who’ve been using AI since day one won’t have the architectural understanding to teach. The product managers who’ve always relied on AI for decisions won’t have the judgment to pass on. The leaders who’ve abdicated to algorithms won’t have the wisdom to share.
Except we are talking about that, and the tech bro response is "in 10 years we'll have AGI and it will do all these things all the time permanently." In their roadmap, there won't be a next generation of software developers, product managers, or mid-level leaders, because AGI will do all those things faster and better than humans. There will just be CEOs, the capital they control, and AI.
What's most absurd is that, if that were all true, that would lead to a crisis much larger than just a generational knowledge problem in a specific industry. It would cut regular workers entirely out of the economy, and regular workers form the foundation of the economy, so the entire economy would collapse.
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
But do you really want them touching it?
Eh, average is an ambiguous term. While in statistics it often means "mean," it can also mean "median" or "mode," and I would argue the layperson saying "average" intends it to mean "typical," which is closer to median (or even mode). And in that case, those 85 percent would not be smarter than average.
“Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs,” the instructor wrote in feedback obtained by The Oklahoman. Instead, the instructor said the paper did “not answer the questions for the assignment.”
The paper “contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive” the criticism went on.
This is three-quarters into the article and should be at the top. The instructor took care to establish that the grade was not punitive based on the student's belief but reflective of failing to meet objective criteria established as the requirement for the assignment.
Expect the feds to invoke the Supremacy Clause and claim being arrested interferes with them executing their duty as a federal agent. They are going to blatantly ignore this law. We're not going to win this by pitting just state laws against unjust federal agents.