Why not both?

YES. RED PRO! Instabuy. I’ve wanted a red pro for years.

I would like to point out that you did point out that Hindenberg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. He also gave the Chancellor emergency powers soon after in the Enabling Act. These were actions he was allowed under the Weimar constitution.

As with anything, causes are complex and numerous. The economic crisis was causing lots of instability, but Hindenberg did not have to do either of these things. It could be said that because the Republic was set up with the President with some certain powers, the Republic was "doomed" because if that person made one bad decision with no checks or balances, the whole thing would most certainly collapse.

Where do you think the term "Norman" comes from? Basically a bunch of vikings led by Rollo came down and raided France until France gave them lands and titles. They were literally "northmen".

Just to be clear, all you are going to find are hypotheses. As many have said here, no one knows quite for sure.

In broad strokes, it was systems collapse based on trade of rare resources. The Mediterranean economy at the time was based primarily on copper and tin, which made Bronze (thus the name of the age). Tin, however, is rare, so it's a weak point in the system. Disrupt tin and the whole system breaks down.

But how exactly did this get disrupted? Was it ecological? changing climate? Raiders from outside the area? Most say it was all of that and more. Someone cites that they do see evidence of a string of volcanic eruptions during this time period, which could have led to drastic and sudden environmental change and this could have changed things such that food was scarce and people turned to invasion and war to find resources and feed themselves. But this is a string of hypotheses tied together with no evidence other than a couple of tablets referencing sea peoples.

What's great about this period however it's a bonafide actual mystery puzzle that tantalizes the imagination with something real, and not those BS "ancient aliens" documentaries on the history channel. You have to be ready to accept that you are not going to find definitive answers but it will fascinate you.

Okay so some issues.

1. The first half of the article is the author talking to an analyst, which is suspect when the article is so simplistic. Okay, so a guys says X. This is typical lightweight reporting.

2. So the author links to two studies, which are important. Except one link is broken! I can't confirm anything they say. For the one link that is not broken, the study is dense, and I can't make out how the analyst draws a line from this study to "it's bad." It's not that I think he's lying, I just don't understand; the study is using statistical methods I'm just not smart enough to know anything about. The analyst says "I routinely see errors at 1:500 or lower." That sounds like on specific types of fingerprint scanning. The author should be breaking things out, which types of identification are better than others. saying "I routinely see errors at 1:500 or lower" makes it sound like that's across all technologies when it could easily be not. It's weasel wording that makes something generic when it might not be. I want specifics.

3. the second half the article is conjecture and mostly a hit piece against biometrics. Some of what he says may be true, but then provides no real proof of any of it. "Apple and Google clearly do X." Do they? Where are your citations for X? You are using the studies as proof of how inaccurate they are, but then wildly speculating as to why. I think he should be a little more generous by trying to explain more possibilities as just that, possibilities and not out and out declarations. There are kernel's of truth here but what I can tell from the study is that it doesn't make out and out declarations as to why, only the how many. To the study's credit, that's what it's supposed to in order to be good science. The article, however, is not good science reporting. Because you heard one report on the internet that someone's kid unlocked your iPhone with their face is not scientific evidence of how often it occurs. Stop including anecdotes with scientific data! Bad reporting!

4. To round things out, Apple claims touch ID has false positives 1/50000. The NIST is looking for 1/100000. So I can't tell how accurate touch ID is because I can't even see which line is touch ID. Touch ID isn't going for the accuracy the NIST is asking for. Face ID is supposed to be much higher, but like I said the study link is broken so I can't even confirm the statistics, even if I could read them. Also, what is "Accuracy"? Is that false positives as well as false negatives? False negatives are a problem, but far less so than false positives.

Again, there are kernels of truth here, but security at this scale is primarily about "how often" and putting things in a risk/reward analysis, and the article doesn't do enough work to put that all into context. It's not that the fingerprint scanner let someone into your phone, it's how often would that occur and if it's more or less possible than guessing your 4 digit code? It's not that your phone let your child unlock your phone, it's how often he had to try it before it took it. This article throws some numbers down but never explains all that and throws a bunch of conjecture. I have no doubt manufacturers like apple are fudging their own numbers, and I would never use Apple's stuff as high security for major corporate or government groups, but I also don't see massive waves of people losing their data when they lose their phones and then someone cracks the biometrics, nor do I see major waves of parents having their children unlock their phones and play candy crush, racking up huge credit card bills.

Bastards were not as much of a thing in Roman times. Like another comment said, you just adopt. Bastards being an issue in succession were products of other times and other regimes and is not a universal issue in all eras.

Generally speaking, attacking in marching columns is not a good idea. When attacking, you need to bring the right amount of force to bear against your enemy. A marching column is just a few men wide, a phalanx is dozens of men wide.

Commanders before powered transport usually have some set of scouts looking ahead telling them where the battle is so that they know where and when to get ready. As they get close they will deploy into a battle formation and engage in good order.

Battle is rarely the mass melee that you see in the movies so no, they don’t just show up and attack. Showing up and attacking without a formation or plan is a recipe for getting everyone killed.

All this is good, I’m merely disputing your statement in the second paragraph that directions are “commands”. I think this is important to your thesis because you believe the article made some unsupported assertion while your statement about directions being commands i believe commits the same error. Everything else I have no dispute with.

It refers to both. You could be assigned female at birth by identify as male. You could be assigned male at birth but identify as nonbinary.

Your sex refers to what you were assigned at birth and what sex organs you have. Gender applies to what you identify.

I don’t think it’s the prevailing opinion that navigation voices are “commanding”. While they aren’t timidly saying “would you please turn right?” They are being assistants. You initially ask the device to give you directions, thus freeing you up to concentrate on operating the vehicle. You are delegating, you are in charge, and the voice is giving clear instructions as a helper but in no way do most people consider these commands. If you miss the turn it recalculates and gives you new directions. You are free to ignore them. They are clearly subservient to you in operation so I believe your perception, while perfectly valid for you, is in the minority and navigation is by no means designed to be a commander but an assistant. If they felt any more forceful people would less likely to use them.

At this level isn't that the same thing?

So instead of a discussion about the science, reddit makes jokes. The jokes aren't offensive, but they reveal exactly what you all think about people who use porn when the study says the exact opposite. GAWD, would it hurt you all to read the article and learn something?

>“I think the biggest takeaway here is that individuals who create and access SEM content are not significantly different than those who do not,” Litam told PsyPost. “Based on the results of our study, OnlyFans users and nonusers endorsed similar sexual attitudes. I believe this finding is important because it directly challenges stigmatizing attitudes that portray SEM users as deviant, hypersexual, and sexually permissive. Ultimately, when it comes down to sexual attitudes, we are all more alike than different.”

Oh, look at that? People who use porn are no different than you and me? People use porn because they want to get off, and it's people from all walks of life. Apparently you aren't some kind of deviant loser if you use porn.

I love a good sex joke but reddit yet again basks in the unabashed irony instead of expanding minds.

Bonk! Go to horny jail!

Because men are slimy filthy pervs and it doesn't matter a lick how women dress or what women do certain men will immediately go with their brains have been trained to go.

I think they know exactly why men see them as a sex object, especially the ones that get paid on twitch. They declare these statements ironically because they have to cope with just how bad it is.