Some kind of abandoned terrain in between two houses/shops next to an old shopping arcade.

The business? It is fairly stable, as long as people keep horsing around.

Of businesses such as napping and watching passers-by, yes.

That’s possible, I don’t know about the heavy industries. Checked for Toyota, founder was an engineer, second family CEO was also engineer, third was MBA, current CEO is not from the family and is an engineer. In any case, I don’t think having an engineer CEO guarantees anything, aren’t the GAFAM mostly led by engineers but got enshitifified for short term profit anyways?

Are they? Rakuten is led by a business guru and the products are subpar unless they bought them. Also Japan has a huge deficit of native (software) engineers, so most of the engineers at this kind of companies are Chinese and Indian. Which companies are you thinking about?

The problem is that the union is politically weak due to the absence of central executive power able to enforce decisions on country governments. So countries are going to keep looking for their own interest in negotiating their little exceptions or flying under Trump radar to avoid his tantrums.

This is also what China is doing and the only loser will be the USA.

This makes me think, there is some kind of “system creationism” philosophy in the far left that is not unlike the Christian one. Thinking that some all powerfull entity (or group) created/designed the situation by itself rather than thinking it is the result of extremely complex historical chain of events and balance between groups and environments. By extension it leads to thinking that somehow removing the powerful entity magically solves the problem.

I wanted robots to do my chores but instead they are taking my job and my hobbies! Hopefully they become addicted to gaming and don’t to take my job anymore.

Why do you think this paper is more correct than the other? This paper seems to be locked on a single definition and says everything else is wrong because it does not follow this definition.

Personally, I find it very intellectually unsatisfying because you can have a individual with male gametes but with a female phenotype, and this definition says, this individual’s sex is without a doubt 100% male. It seems the main benefit is not questioning a historical definition, which fits well with conservative opinions. There’s clear evidence on many other subjects that this can slow down or block science (ex: tobacco, climate).

I feel there’s some marketing conspiracy with the “office” term. It looks like they have been planning to make it disappear because it is uncool for some new marketing genius or it reduces the target markets, I guess. So they first attached a new term, 365, as a transition, and now they dropped the office while keeping the 365 so recent users can still make the link.
The AI bubble was maybe just a convenient excuse to advance the plan.
Plus, since post-covid, return to office is very unpopular, how convenient!
The plot thickens.

Isn’t gamete also only one aspect of what constitutes the sex? What do you do of the sexual phenotype for example? See this article about a multimodal modelisation of sex. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1.full.pdf

Maybe a contradiction between the animal shape and the design requirements for the handle. If they had given the parrot a long neck, it would have looked like an overly stretched out parrot.

Makes sense, would have been fun if we had seen it at the same place.

Macaws are parrots.

Missing colors on the beak, could be a royal penguin too.

Naha?

Which country?

At least, in your case, it was not the dog’s.

What’s the origin of the attacks against the police and firefighters? Poor suburbs’ youth angry at the system?