Not "someone". It has to be the DNC. And it need to show me the text where it broke up with Israel. And it needs to apologize to Bernie. Also I will still not like its candidate.
If I tried to promote a candidate on my own or talked to any other org, than DNC would think I wasn't serious about how much I'm not going to vote for its candidate.
I'd assume that somewhere later it explains what "N/A" and "*" mean here, but you can see that "Under 55" picks Sanders while "50-64" picks Clinton. So my guess is that "N/A" means that the size of that group is too small for them to have confidence in it. When they combine the two columns together, there's enough (that's why there's data show in "Under 55").
Like (I'm just making up numbers), maybe they determine that they need 100 respondents to have any statistical power. And they got 70 in the 18-34 group and 87 in the 35-49 group, but 103 in the 50-64 and 450 in the 65+.
You can see a hint of this in the sampling error, also: the larger number on 50-64 means that was the smallest of the groups shown. Meanwhile "55 and Older" is clearly a larger group than "Under 55".
Probably, "*" means "no responses". They don't want to say "0%" because they know it's not true that there are literally zero younger voters who had no opinion, but none of the people they surveyed answered that way. That's another hint that the group is small.
In an unfettered marketplace, what stops a dominant player from introducing fetters?
When I read your message, I get the impression that you think of "The Government" as this independent actor. I see it as a system that is primarily controlled by wealthy people. Either directly or through their funding advertisements (including astroturfing/bot-farms) to promote what they want.
So the larger companies do get government assistance... because they are the government. And this isn't some kind of weird coincidence. It's fundamental to capitalism's operation. You can't have a system that's based on capital and then have it be unbiased towards entities who have vastly more capital!
It sounds like your position is that the loneliness epidemic affects everyone and that there's no reason to talk about it being male loneliness. If so, I believe you're in agreement with the OP and feminist circles: "There is no male loneliness epidemic. It is simply a loneliness epidemic."
However, if you nose around online, you'll find that there are MRA-type circles who are very invested in the idea that it is a specifically-male problem. I interpret the OP img-text as being a reaction against that. To continue the New University quote from above: "By arbitrarily gendering a universal loneliness, our fragmented society becomes further fractured, and the discourse surrounding relationships becomes a breeding ground for misogyny."
In the past, it was expected that men would have closer relationships with each other. Then we had the whole backlash against the hippie movement and it became "gay" and "bad" to swap handjobs with your bros in the basement den.
Are you suggesting that's why the US hasn't improved trains? Is there something about train improvements specifically that you think is harmful?
Continue to allow blank-ballot to be a legal vote (as it is today). Nobody has to vote if they don't want, and now if you're trying to do a protest-abstain it actually gets noticed.
Giving a shit is more work than not giving a shit. But voting for a candidate doesn't mean you like them and it doesn't bind you to supporting them. I can post "Harris is a cop fuck cops >:-(" after I voted for her.
IMO the key is: how long does it take you to vote, and if you don't vote what are you doing with that time that is more valuable and progressive?
If someone told me, "I didn't vote last election because I was campaigning 18 hours a day for native land rights and there was no way to get mail or reach a polling place" OK. I'm not blaming that person. They're working way the fuck harder than I am to make the world better. If someone told me, "I didn't vote last election because I barely survive on my three jobs and the GOP has made my polling place a 6 hour line that I have to drive to. I can't even afford the gas to get there." Yeah, that makes sense.
But I never hear that from online progressives. I hear, "oh I didn't vote because both parties suck." "I didn't vote because they didn't support ." "I didn't vote because there's no point." These are all shitty answers. Better answer is: "I did vote for the Democratic candidate and I'll always vote for the most progressive candidate available." That's the minimum effort.
This is good advice for all tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information.
The whole paragraph is kinda FUD except for this. Normal research practice is to (get ready for a shock) do research and not just copy a high-level summary of what other people have done. If your professors were saying, "don't cite encyclopedias, which includes Wikipedia" then that's fine. But my experience was that Wikipedia was specifically called out as being especially unreliable and that's just nonsense.
I personally use ChatGPT like I would Wikipedia
Eesh. The value of a tertiary source is that it cites the secondary sources (which cite the primary). If you strip that out, how's it different from "some guy told me..."? I think your professors did a bad job of teaching you about how to read sources. Maybe because they didn't know themselves. :-(
Can't even ignore the pain of getting a post deleted...
I asked plenty of questions on SO and never had a bad experience. But I put quite a bit of work in. You couldn't ask "how do i sort a list in JAVA" and get answers, you had to ask "here's some code I'm writing and it does but I think it should do because what's going on?" and people gave some really nice answers. (Or you could put "how do sort list java" into web search and get a fine answer to that; it's not like SO was the only place to ask low-effort questions.)
One of the bad things with AI is it's soooo helpful that when I get questions now it's like "please create a DNS entry for foo.bar.baz" and they're asking because the AI got completely stuck on something simple (like making a request to api.github.com) and wandered up and down and eventually decided on some nonsense course of action and the developer has given up on thinking about anything.