If any solution relies on large numbers of people to make any sacrifice it statistically will fail every time. The solution must come from science, from a small group, that can scale very large with profit as it’s backbone to implement it. No other way is possible.

Totally depends on the part

While likely necessary, it’s a shame and far less logistically favorable, which in turn affects emissions.

What if you let an HIV infected man-gorilla fuck your mom, just once in a while though, so he’ll stop beating her every day. Seems like it’d be in everyone’s best interest yeah?

So not very long at all /s, not that it shouldn’t be a word, but rather, why complicate the legal system needlessly when such systems rely on relativity, clarity, and consistency. Outside of that context we can have 10000 words for it.

I see no reason to make a special specific word as every category needs this…

They should just add modifiers to the category: Assault for instance can get aggravated and hate crime as adjuvants. Murder has manslaughter and degrees and could have hate crime modifiers.

This is a more fair and clear generalized solution of core concepts than entirely new specific categories.

Well you’d think they would include that in the calculation.

Ends up in semantics though… Contested only requires 1, and highly or widely is not defined, and who is a qualifying contributor is not qualified, and who is a qualifying arbiter is not defined.

Depending on how invested he is in the feedback, he may not even realize currently it’s being read outside the context of the wiki editing neutrality issue he was talking about for the article.

I know nothing about his politics, and can only talk about the semantic concepts.

To play devil’s advocate, due to the formulation of his edit suggestion, he may have meant how to depict the claims is being highly contested (on wiki) and should be more neutral and specific as per who is claiming what… And said it badly.

Yes, the more specific you filter the community towards the niche culture, the higher the probability. But to get there you’d probably have to filter down to specific sub-communities in specific parts of specific towns. I feel it’s intellectually safe to call the rest a vast majority overall.

Despite the down votes, this is the real answer to your question. No the vast majority will not find it appealing. You would be highly selectively filtering your audience. The answer to why, is culture.

You got crushed by the hive mind, but this is the real answer

It requires drill down now and doesn’t list visits on the location itself which is a huge negative.

Very depressing. We’re social animals, and being highly literate and informed while also socially apt, you really realize just how far apart you are from others, which is alienating, frustrating, and tiresome.

I’m sure the actual paper defines this better, but without a definition of what puts something in this category, it’s not useful.

Even for bread, is it all bread? Is it added gluten? Is it a specific preservative? Is it only bread with bleached flour?

Even so, mass produced and packaged is not the actual contributor…

Same with prepared food… Costco makes prepared food that is equivalent to what you’d make at home. It’s that still bad? If not, what other prepared food is fine?

Surprise, it’s religious history.

Simple sorts are fundamentally different than the algorithms people are talking about.

They close the bags with a dot of plastic based glue so it doesn’t open

Multiple boots on the ground on the Russia side, only takes boots on the ground from any nato country to qualify now. It’s very close.

Would he have had diplomatic immunity?