Merciful fuck, that's a grim ad; any way you interpret it doesn't look good.

Party politics definitely matters for some things, but when it comes to how the US acts in the Middle East and North Africa... there is less of a distinction. I think the last time there was real policy divergence was probably under the Bush (W) admin, where I think a Democrat in the same position would have been unlikely to invade Iraq. The drone program for example has been equally popular under Republican and Democrat administrations, and has only ever increased over time.

For someone in the region affected, the difference between a Bush or an Obama is probably thin enough to strangle on.

The reality is indeed tragic, a civil war over existing ethnic and religious divides, exploited by Iran, and then exploited by Saudi Arabia as an extension of the conflict between Iran and KSA.

The Yemeni people are definitely the ones losing.

Which people of Yemen, there's a civil war going on between those people.

The phrasing is interesting, "Living in" not "Living in his" or "His home."

So does this guy own the property? Does their presence in this property indicate something about their overall financial wellbeing?

The alternative is to watch Yemen turn into the next Syria, under Iranian control.

China relying on international protections of IP? What next, are they going to appeal to a human rights council? lol

"Twitter isn't a real place."

She definitely has that pageant look, for better or worse.

There are almost always some women and people under 18, they just aren't the majority, which is also probably the reason for the careful phrasing in the article. "Among" and "Includes" implying without stating that it was a tiny minority of the whole.

That isn't just like America, in the US it took about a hundred years for black people to fight for the right to participate in sports with white people. How could Americans so easily forget segregation in life and in sports?

You only changed your tune after WWII, and even then the first black person on a white team didn't occur until the 1950's.

It's a way to fire up emotions and tamp down any other discussion.

More evidence of "Israeli apartheid" I see. /s

Wow, a large language model isn't good at producing art?

Shooooockerino.

"Look here, this slab of American concrete is our Macau!"

Not how it works my hateful buddies, not at all.

The devil is only interested in souls, and Cameron doesn't have one.

The short answer is that alcohol has been part of the accepted culture since the dawn of writing, whereas tobacco was a relatively recent import from the 'New World' for non-indigenous people. There is also the relatively recent lesson in the failure of alcohol prohibition which is deeply ingrained in Western culture.

None of this should be taken as an argument in favor of drinking, I just wanted to offer some context for contemporary attitudes, which aren't shaped by accurate risk assessment; few human policies and attitudes are shaped by accurate risk assessment.

I agree, and this unreviewed study with a modest sample analyzed with MR is one of those.

Having said that there have been some longitudinal studies on the harm of smoking marijuana, which is generally argued to be the most harmful way to take it, they've proven unable to find even a corollary.

There have been a few which find a very slight signal of possible lung cancer risk in heavy marijuana smokers after a 40 year follow-up, but it's tenuous.

Still others have looked at links between coronary vessel disease and marijuana, with the benefit of peer review and publication. They found nothing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5343712

Some studies attempted to find a link between marijuana use and stroke or myocardial infarction, but they inevitably fall apart when confounding factors such as smoking, drinking, and other high risk behaviors are accounted for.

My goal wasn't to engage in semantic arguments, but to point out that "the benefits are overstated" doesn't imply that the harm is understated.

There's a difference between dismissing outrageous claims of efficacy, and proving harm.

You just seem very agitated about a mundane part of life: technology takes time to move past the realm of early adopters who can afford it, until it becomes ubiquitous and life changing for everyone.

> Oh sorry, I mean... you object to the time frame in the headline.

You missed that? Not sure I can help if so.

Putting aside your objection to the 10 year mark though, what's the issue?

Not really, it's just that mass adoption has to start somewhere; you object to that in principle, I don't.

Oh sorry, I mean... you object to the time frame in the headline.

I think you may be struggling with what "PC" means.