It’s important to note many of these studies involved self-reported coffee consumption, and the research was funded by the Institute for Scientific Information of Coffee – a non-profit organization supported by major international coffee companies.

Make sure you email this tip to his lawyer once he has one

Agreed, OP’s post is what they WANT you to say— don’t help them out guys

Additional snippet: “Overall, we seem to be seeing a dispersal of populations, some of which were previously concentrated at larger Late Chalcolithic sites, who are voting with their feet by abandoning Late Chalcolithic settlements and forming new communities that show no signs of regional-level integration or centralisation.”

He was also valedictorian according to another article!

Edit: This article too— my bad

Super interesting read! New frontiers for sure.

From the MSN article

The wannabe doppelganger noted that he didn’t have to particularly dress up for the event, saying “I wear this everywhere.”

His killer looks landed him $50.

The champ said he’s had his own issues with health insurance companies covering some of his medications, although he admitted he is not a UnitedHealthcare customer.

Killer looks guys

My friend was like “this woman has man instincts” during that scene

What a pleasant exchange ^_

I just saw someone that looked very similar hiking off trail near Sonora Pass in the sierra nevadas

IFF you use the universal quantifier

Good guy assassin didn’t use a silencer to avoid detection, just didn’t want to disturb the peace

I bet they suddenly pass gun laws now

Yeah I feel like twitter in specific started (or maybe just accelerated) a trend towards moral absolutism in online spaces.

It’s always enjoyable to watch people who spend a lot of time in online echo chambers trying to use the same energy irl.

Right on

The court is caught in an impossible bind.

To have refused to charge Netanyahu and Gallant would have given the court’s implicit blessing to Israel’s dismantlement, bit by bit, of the laws of war.

It would have confirmed the criticisms of those who say the ICC serves as simply another weapon – a legal one – to be used by the US and Nato against states they dislike.

And it would have licensed other states to cite the Israel exemption as an alibi to commit their own crimes against humanity. The ICC would have doomed itself to irrelevance.

On the other hand, acting against Israel – and thereby against Washington and its European satraps – puts the court directly on a collision course with the West.

It jeopardises the international legal order the court is there to uphold – one developed immediately after the Second World War to prevent the very crimes against humanity that culminated in the Holocaust and the US atomic bombing of Japanese cities.

This is precisely Netanyahu’s goal, as Israel’s Haaretz newspaper reported last week: “Netanyahu intends to turn the ICC arrest warrant against him into a global motion of no confidence against international law and its institutions.”

The likelihood is that Washington will bring the whole edifice tumbling down rather than set a precedent in which it agrees to sacrifice its highly militarised client state, strategically located in the oil-rich Middle East.

A lot of people get increasingly sentimental as they get older and the guy’s your dad. You don’t owe him anything and don’t have to engage at all, but he’d likely be grateful for even a surface level relationship with his estranged kid if you’re at all interested.

The assumption that people will always treat their friends/family/benefactors better than others should be baked into how we organize instead of being a continuous foil to fairness

I like Geoff Mann’s description: “When money is released into general circulation by a bank or a state, it is always issued via the process of debt creation. Which is to say, even though it is hard for many of us to believe, that much if not most of the money in circulation is produced when someone or some institution goes into debt. (Remember it need not be physical currency to circulate; currency represents a very small fraction of circulating money.) For example, when someone borrows money from a bank, it is not as if the bank has that money in bills and coins in a safe in the basement, nor does it have it in “digital” form. Instead, by lending money to the borrower (and thereby fulfilling its obligation to the debt contract), the bank basically “creates” that money. It simply creates a big hole in its own accounts, with a “minus” sign beside it. The debt contract stipulates that the borrower’s obligation is to fill the hole by a set date. The money loaned does not need to pre-exist the debt contract. Which means that the debt contract literally creates the money, because the big hole the bank placed in its own accounts is mirrored by an equally large “pile” in the borrower’s account. The borrower spends that money in the economy, and, in addition to the interest that is the price of using this money, slowly pays the bank back to fill the hole. The money produced via the loan is issued to the borrower who is then indebted, and the money represents the means of settling that debt.

The debt in this example is obviously private (be-tween a borrower and a private bank), but money produced by the creation of their credit-debt contract can circulate generally in the public realm-if you borrow to pay your tuition, the money you borrow is not special money only you can use. Your school can use it to pay instructors and buy office furniture, instructors can use it to buy groceries, and so on. The money is a product of your indebtedness, and you can transfer it to whomever you please- it is transferable debt. Now, in theory, a bank cannot go on creating money in this way without limit. Modern banking systems have regulated “capital requirements”; some portion of a banks money-loan portfolio must be covered by reserves of cash or cash-like assets. But the ratio in most capitalist nation-states is only around 10 percent, often even less.

Thus, at least in theory, unless all banks are simultaneously maxed out on their lending— unlikely, and even if it did happen, the banks merely have to go raise some more money to add to their reserves— the money supply can change size in response to demand for loans without direct state involvement.

Similarly, when the state creates money via spend-ing, “printing,” borrowing, etc., the money issued is a form of state debt. State-issued money is a claim on the state by the holder of the money, and it circulates among all the other private bank-issued debt-money: transferable debt. So, for example, when you come to settle your account with the state (pay your taxes, say), the state must accept its own credit-issue as legitimate means of redemption. The money is transferable debt that must be accepted as equivalent to the abstract unit of account.“

Every time the banks grant a loan they’re effectively printing money

I wish we would use this phenomenon to build a more empathetic society with incentives that encourage people do do things that are mutually beneficial