microphone900
That's a great question! We didn't really need sunscreen in prehistoric time because we adapted to the environments that we lived in and we didn't migrate to new environments as quickly as we could in later times. Those adaptations are getting more tan more easily and growing thicker skin. We can still see this now in people who don't use sunscreen and their skin looks tougher and more leathery. Also, there were some ancient sunscreens ranging from simple mud to pastes made from ground plants.
Over the decades, numerous investigations have exposed how Israeli intelligence targets LGBTQ+ people. In 2013, Vice published an investigation detailing how the Palestinian Authority’s preventative security forces, under the direction of the IDF, had isolated gay Palestinians from their communities, kept files on them, and exploited them for intelligence. In 2015, news reports revealed that a surveillance technology company run by a former Unit 8200 official had helped provide Uganda with malware allegedly used against LGBTQ+ activists.
I didn't know they could do worse, but here we are.
I've noticed a small change in how news media has recently been reporting information provided by Palestine: they're not using 'according to Hamas run (agency)' as often. It's a small but significant change that, I think, indicates more people are no longer buying that Israel has the "most moral army."
I haven't seen any reporting confirming that she's got XY chromosomes. But if you have an article, please correct me if I'm wrong. What I've been able to find is this:
Banned governing body that’s fueling outcry on Olympic boxers has Russian ties and troubled history
Summary-
-
The disqualification was done in a tournament run by an organization banned by the Olympics.
-
She participated in tournaments run by this organization with no issues for the last several years.
-
The organization hasn't said why she was disqualified.
-
The man spouting the 'trans woman' claims is the leader of the organization. He's a friend of Putin and described as a drug trafficker.
-
Her disqualification happened after she beat the previously undefeated Russian boxer Amineva 3 days post fight.
There's more in the article, but these are the quick bullet points I came up with.
This is the latest in a 14 part investigation that started in May 2024 and just wow. The story gets more insane and unhinged with each part that's released.
That's perfect timing for me, I just got my hands on a Pico 4 last week. Well, I really hope they open sales to the American market to make buying one easier but I understand if they don't. I'll get one in a year or two regardless because I am loving the Pico 4 for SteamVR already. The experience is great, it was easy to get PCVR working, it doesn't hurt to wear for a few hours, the visuals are great. Sure, the price was a little more than a Meta set but I didn't have to create a Facebook account to use it which is worth the cost for me.
She then claimed that if people would take a moment to try to “understand…the context” of her husband’s comment and focus less on the “three-word phrase,” they would understand that he was simply arguing that “it can be really hard to be a parent in this country, and sometimes our policies are designed in a way that make it even harder.”
Our policies. Policies like being against school lunches? Like voting against a child tax credit? Like not supporting or opposing funding for childcare? Like opposing paid parental leave? I don't know, it sure feels like some folks in particular have made it their goal to continue hardships for parents and children.
Right! It took me all of 10s of seconds searching and a few minutes of reading to find that this was all BS coming out of Putin's friend who runs the boxing organization which was banned by the IOC for shady dealings; and the disqualification for one boxer happened days after she beat a Russian boxer who was undefeated until that fight; and no one has come out to say exactly why both were disqualified.
Banned governing body that’s fueling outcry on Olympic boxers has Russian ties and troubled history
Summary-
-
The disqualifications were done in a tournament run by an organization banned by the Olympics.
-
Both boxers participated in tournaments run by this organization with no issues for the last several years.
-
The organization hasn't said why they were disqualified.
-
The man spouting the 'trans woman' claims is the leader of the organization. He's a friend of Putin and described as a drug trafficker.
-
The disqualification for Khelif happened after she beat the previously undefeated Russian boxer Amineva 3 days post fight.
Strangely, nobody who's up in arms about the weird claim has looked into who made it, when, the context around it, or an explanation for it. They just ate it up.
Would it make a difference to you if the controversy kicked off because the org that disqualified these two fighters was banned by the IOC from participating in the Olympics for shady stuff? Or if the org has never said why they were disqualified? Or if the guy making the wild claims is the head of the org and a friend of Putin, and the DQ for one fighter happened after she beat an until then undefeated Russian fighter?
You really should look into the background of it. Here's an AP News link
They can request and may be assigned an individual tax ID number (ITIN). Having an ITIN may allow them to open a bank account. It also makes it so they pay taxes which a surprising number want to do. Since they want to stay in the country, having a long history of paying taxes is a way to show you don't want to cause trouble and you just want to work. Hell, a lot of them probably know they got Al Capone on tax evasion and don't want to end up like him. Here's a report I just Googled, and possibly the source of the number which is an estimate.
On the other side is how much tax funding is used on them. Here's a report from the House of Representatives which states they use more in services (Medicare, WIC, sending kids to school, etc) than they pay. I can't speak to how accurate the report is considering the makeup and views publicly expressed by members of the committee. I'm personally leaning towards 'they don't, and can't, use as more than they contribute' because they're not eligible for many benefits.