This study was done in Vietnam, where the government fully covers health insurance costs for the poor and elderly.

A court of law is not a public discourse not a place to air your grievances. It is there to decide if someone did something to break the law or to at least decide responses Based on the law.

Calling a judge Hitler because they interpreted the law against you or someone you IS contempt.

It disrupts and slows proceedings. Potentially tampering with jury views in a way that isn't legal and frankly is just a baby throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting their way. So yes, a judge can say the person is in contempt and remove them. But unlike public meetings, there are ways to redress the judges decision and make a trial a mistrial if they push too far.

Maybe read the article? Even just the first paragraph would show your comment has no value considering what it says.

Here, I'll help.

"In a decision that jangled the nerves of some elected officials, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last week reaffirmed a basic liberty established by the founding fathers: the right to be rude at public meetings."

Note that 3 extra words at the end of the paragraph change the context from "being rude anywhere and everywhere" to just during public meetings.

Now, you Miiiight try to argue court is a public meeting, but it isn't. Many states require the courts to be Public, but they aren't considered Meetings and so they are not Public Meetings.

It's actually always been fascinating to me, in the 40 years my mother has banked at the exact same location, it has been owned by 7 different banks.

Each time the smaller bank was bought out by a slightly larger one, that was then taken over by a third. Until now it is owned by one of the big 5 (has been for years now).

The US had a LOT of regional banks. Ones that were only in a single town or city. That means there was a lot of tiny failures that happened that were purely local.

Because we all know people on Reddit never make mistakes and/or intentionally misleading graphs /s

"Safety-toe footwear are shoes which have a steel toe cap underneath the leather toe cap and protect the wearer's toe from moving or falling objects. Safety-toe footwear needs to comply with the requirements and specifications of the latest version of ASTM F2413. Examples of work which require safety-toe footwear are: warehouse operations; moving operations involving heavy equipment; work involving close contact with large animals; and jobs requiring work with certain chemicals."

It specifies Warehouse operations needing Safety-Toe footwear, which is a steel toe cap footwear.

No one Has cats, they are allowed to house the cat at its discretion. /s

"López said his office reviews and approves applications for venues looking to host debates. Cleo Parker Robinson Dance’s application, obtained by The Denver Post through a public records request, indicated that its “theater is ADA accessible via our back entrance.” López office granted the application approval."

The article literally states that one of the offices reviewed and approved.

I assume you didn't bother reading the post afterwards explaining that extra piece for the person.

Secondly, the reason I am using a building size multiplied by 100 is for the idea of someone walking around AS IF they were moving such speeds, but Also that you need to take into account different orbits, which is effectively hundreds of different 'buildings' in the example I gave (Would have chosen floors, but people don't experience super large single story buildings so wouldn't get the vastness as easily). So the 'thousands of miles per hour' part is already there.

To give you context Otherwise. The US alone has 100,000 flights a day. The US is approximately 6.1% of the world by landmass. Planes can travel up to 500 or so mph. while satellites go at 17,000 mph. There are about 12.5k satellites over earth. Satellites also go above the earth by about an extra 10-20% (important because amount of space grows). So to give an idea without using people as an analogy.

To give you an idea, the likelihood of 2 planes crashing in mid-air in the US is far more likely than 2 satellites crashing in orbit. Even when you take speeds into consideration.

Yes it is possible. Although the fear is less two satellites crashing into each other and more the fear that a satellite will break up and create thousands of little pieces that could crash into More satellites.

To take the analogy I used before farther.

Now imagine two people Do run into each other, either because one wasn't paying attention or by malicious design. Now picture 1000 hyperactive kids being produced off of that collision. They aren't going to pay attention and will just run around bouncing off the walls, jumping between buildings as they want.

Yes, some will leave the buildings altogether, but many will be around due to orbital dynamics (not getting into that here). So now each person walking around has to watch for other people, And screaming children who don't pay attention (literally can't they aren't self driving).

There are about 12.3 thousand satellites orbiting in space

Now, if you were to take 12 thousand people and have them run around the US, would you be worried they would hit each other?

Since most might try to counter. Yes, the satellites are moving quicker, but at the same time, they are in orbits at different levels too.

So imagine that everyone is in a huge building, the biggest you have ever seen. Now imagine that that building has 100 copies of it physically (orbital distance of space). Now put those 12k people in any of the 100 buildings randomly and tell them to walk or run around, but I'd they see another, to intentionally avoid them.

That is what space is like

Technically there is only 1 form of perfection, else you are parsing up perfection, which would make it not perfect.

Perfect might be boring and not take risks, but unless you are defining perfect very narrowly, it absolutely cannot 'waste time' or not progress (unless progress would be lesser).

After all, if it truly is Perfect, it will go exactly as far as needed at the exact right timings, no waste.

Funny, every job I have ever worked at had HR just get a list of open positions and a salary range for it. Possibly a priority version so they knew what to aim for more heavily.

They never decided how much to budget for hires or even pay raises, that was other departments.

For 1 I can only guess something along the lines of 'they didn't have an abortion so they are more likely republican'.

For 2, election reform doesn't usually mean things like requiring gov ID to vote. It means things like switch everything to rank choice or get rid of the two party system.

Yes, but would the same bridge being built in 1980 cost the same in 2022?

Unless this adjusts for items like More power lines, bridges, houses, towers and other items like that in an area. And then also adjusts the costs of the items for inflation, this chart is t actually useful to show anything other than humans build more the longer we are around and things get more expensive over the years.

And so if one nation says no then the child cannot be adopted at all?

The problem with needing both nations consent is the assumption that both nations will agree.

If the child has citizenship in both Korea and the US, yes. They are a child of both nations.

Or would you say it was OK for the US to adopt a child who is of both citizenships in the US but not Korea. Or maybe you would say that that child cannot be adopted at all since it requires consent of both nations.

Do you think it's ok to segregate children based on their parents race, sexual orientation, religion and/or ancestry?

Because effectively what you are implying is that native children are only OK to be with native parents. Which logically would fit the same with any race or religion argument for segregation of the child.

Part of the article above

"SpaceX was charging Ukraine’s military $2,500 a month to keep each of the 1,300 units connected, pushing the total cost to almost $20 million by September, the person briefed on the matter said. Eventually, they could no longer afford to pay, the person said."

This indicates that Ukraine was paying and stopped because they couldn't afford it.

From what I read of the article it said they were paying him and that it had gotten too expensive to pay.

That implies either a contract involved or them just assuming that if they don't pay they would still get something for nothing.

In either case, if Ukraine was paying and stopped, unless they had a contract saying that services would continue, it is only reasonable for services to end when the client doesn't pay.

The DoD also knows that if they sign a contract and don't pay, that they will lose the services rendered.

So problem solved. As each country taxes the profits from their company as they see fit. So companies are being taxed for global profits.

EDIT: oh look, someone who posts a response and immediately blocks a person, how mature

Yes, because sticking someone into an MRI machine and asking them to hold their head still so that they can use this technologies over putting someone in and placing electrodes on them directly is very much what the Big Brother will do.