with Democrats on the left
Do keep in mind the most left leaning democrat you can think of would be a center-right candidate in my country. It’s unfortunate that indeed you can only work with what you got, but don’t be surprised when others cringe at the thought of calling your democratic party leftist.
deleted by creator
Notice how I said brazilian law, yet you’re pretending the logic in your country would apply.
A company could write any warranty terms they wanted - hell, they could write a clause claiming “I hate laws and I’m willingly subjecting myself to the terms of this manufacturer, no takesies-backsies” and guess what, I’d still be protected by the lawful warranty process.
A company can set their own terms for additional warranties they might want to offer as part of their marketing, with some restrictions still. But for the legal minimum? No warranty terms in the world could violate them.
What I understand about the “intention of the text” is that:
That’s probably the intention, but because it was written by somebody with zero academic biological experience that is also trying to cosplay as a professional writing a rigorous definition, it fails to do so.
XY: male. XX: female.
Would you like to hear a crazy secret? We biologists don’t use the words “gender” and “sex” separately because we feel like it, there is a major difference between the too. Want to hear something even crazier? We don’t use “XY = male!” as our definition either.
People who’s body or mind don’t match with their genes
Huh… where else do you think their traits come from? Their soul? Their zodiac sign? Your phenotype is nothing but your genes + regulated expression from the environment.
then be a male or a female with one or a combination of hormonal, developmental, or psychological issues
Are blond people just a male or female with a developmental issue in their hair’s pigmentation? Or for this specific category of human diversity you’re okay with calling them what they are rather than trying to define what wild type genomic expression is the “correct”? I mean, a person with XY chromosomes but a mutated SRY gene would develop entirely as a female, your worldview seems to imply that’s “hormonal and developmental issues!” but then I’d love to hear your views on race - or in fact, I would much rather not hear them, if they follow the same logic as your initial proposition.
While we are here, how about the XY individuals with a working SRY gene that physically develop as male, but have certain neural activation patterns only found in women and that swear they were born in the wrong body from a very young age? Why exactly are we going to discard the biological evidence to their subjective perception, just because it makes you uncomfortable? Because if that’s the case, maybe your subjectivity makes me uncomfortable… should we start listing and denying aspects of your physiology too?
Every warranty is a “trust me bro” warranty
Try that shit here in Brazil and your company is paying some fines you could not have dreamed of. And guess what, the customer would get their warranty regardless of your desire.
You are here because a woman got pregnant by mans semen.
Because a secondary oocyte got fertilized by a spermatozoa, and then a cascade of subsequent cell divisions worked well enough. Anything else are your claims alone, not some factual statement.
That’s a whole debate people from the US are not ready for
At conception the future sex is determined by the chromosomes that the sperm contributes.
Explain that to XY individuals with a mutated SRY, meaning they never develop male traits at all, even though they’re XY.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m incredibly grateful to my colleagues and IT department at work for allowing me to use zero Microsoft products.
I don’t use Windows, Office, Teams, Outlook, Bing or anything made by Microsoft at all, both in my personal life as well as work.
Life is great!
They’re correct, but also exaggerating it. If you ask somebody to brew you a cup using a french press, and using the same ground coffee, a batch of a pour over, you’ll notice some oils floating on the french press cup and not the pour over. So indeed, the paper filter will remove lipids from the brew. But are those in a quantity that could “raise cholesterol in some people”? Absolutely not, you’d have to be chugging coffee like a monster and even then, the tablespoon of butter you use in your toast is a much bigger concern.
I love coffee, a lot. I love the smell, the taste, the ritual of making it. Once you’re drinking it a lot, it’s also very hard to cut back because if you do you get those massive headaches and you feel like your brain is foggy.
But suddenly I was feeling angry, irritable, had trouble sleeping and was not following along the material from my master’s research that I used to have no problem reading. So I forced myself to quit caffeine. Ooooooh boy. Turns out drinking a lot of coffee really does mess you up. The first couple of days were terrible, but by the fourth day I was waking up singing with the birds as if I was a Disney princess.
Now I still drink coffee, but only when I wake up and only one cup. No more than that.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Of course it is, because the point isn’t whether or not they could deny doing the bare minimum - they can’t.
The point is companies like LTT use a “extended warranty!”, “lifetime warranty!”, “never have a headache with our products in your life!” as part of their marketing, so they make these claims to change how the customer will evaluate their purchase… yet they try to get away with having undefined terms, because this way, they can actually deny the promised lifetime warranty for whatever random bullshit they come up with.
Both situations are protected in Brazilian law. Certainly the bare minimum doesn’t have to be written, the law does so for you already, but any claims of further protections need to be written and can’t be changed after the fact.