primal_buddhist

It's about the latter but it doesn't have to work, just looks like you took action to solve a Daily Mail agenda..

Yeah, so oats plus oats plus water

Is that not just oatmeal and water?

Difficult but legally required by them, including establishing your bona fides.

Really? Like where are you thinking about?

Boomers have been in power for a long long time and the technology we are debating is as a result of their investment and prioritisation. So am not sure they are very afraid of it.

We can condemn Hamas and Israel in the same breath. We don't have to support Israel as the agency to "remove" Hamas.

Could be that that is employee headcount and not including contractors.

Depends if they also evaporate.

Only the eye for an eye was the bible, the world goes blind was Ghandi.

Well, not to diss on giving to charity but two technical arguments against. One is, you are acting as an additional tax on the worker (the source of the surplus) and then redirecting that tax to charity. It's fine but the elected government has democratically selected priorities that they can rarely fund so it is better to just give it to the treasury. And 2, just don't collect this tax in the first place, allowing the worker to spend it on the local economy.

Yes, we can still go in but now we have measured the difference and can judge what it would take to make it worthwhile.