What gentlemen’s club takes money from women and then denies them entry?

Therein lies the problem. They want a woman-only exhibit, then they need to deny men admission from the museum in entirety. But that would probably be detrimental to the museum’s bottom line. But you can’t take money from men and then deny equal access, nor can you do it to women.

Ah, yes, the guy that forced his daughter to get a staring role in Avatar playing a 100% API role.

Infill development in the middle of a city can be just as disaster prone and those in a forest or on the ocean.

No insurance companies care. They are all in business to make money. I can’t blame them for not wanting to insure a disaster-prone area.

And you wouldn’t want to see your mortgage rate if that mortgage was no longer secured with a collateral asset, which is what a mortgage without insurance would essentially be. Unsecured debt always has much higher rates. You are better off with insurance. You pay one way or another.

The only one forcing people to have homeowners insurance is mortgage companies, that want to ensure the collateral on that mortgage doesn’t disappear.

That and common sense, as even if you don’t have a mortgage, you also don’t want a disaster to make your largest asset go poof.

There is competition. That is meant to keep prices lower. But insuring people in disaster prone areas just isn’t a wise business decision.

Then maybe don’t start shooting when agents come to your door with a valid search warrant.

You challenge things in court, not with a gun.

You are being intentionally obtuse. Thank for helping climate change to kill us.

men are certainly experiencing the artwork as it’s intended

Perhaps that is the intent of the curator, but what evidence is there this is what the artists intended. Picasso write somewhere “I only want the ladies to see this one?”

It’s a dumb approach that will not make the point the curator thinks it will make. And I bet that person would be pissed if there were a male-only exhibit.

Exclusive men’s social clubs have existed all over the world, including Canada and particularly thrived in the 19th century. These exclusionary clubs often only accepted white members and barred women from entering the space,

And those clubs didn’t deny women access after they paid for admission

You said it comes with side effects as of to say EVERY patient will deal with them. And you act like doctors hide the risk of complications. As an actual patient, absolutely not! My first appointment, I was given a book produced by out program highlighting common issues and how to mitigate/prevent them to the extent possible.

You clearly want to discourage bariatric surgery. I want to encourage people to make the best decision for themselves in conjunction with their medical team.

Dumping syndrome is avoidable by not consuming too much sugar. And it is not an issue for people that receive a gastric sleeve.

Vitamin malabsorption is easily addressed with vitamin supplements.

Most bariatric programs restrict patients from consuming alcohol for 6 months and more. The risk comes from transfer addiction, which also is an issue for all overeaters making changes.

You know what else causes many of those side effects? MORBID OBESITY.

This is absolutely healthier. My doctor recommended it for years and I finally went through it. The constant hunger is gone. I’ve give from being winded and in pain after walking a quarter mile to being able to walk several miles pain free.

You know when I first saw my surgeon, he told me the same thing you said at the end: it isn’t about being thin, it’s about being healthy. Heck, he specifically said I’d never be thin.

I tried to make changes for years, lost lots of weight multiple times, only to see it go right back on and then some. Every time it was harder. I needed something that would help keep it off. The best medical data told me surgery was the best bet for that.

And I know what you are thinking: bariatric surgery is cheating, it’s the east way out. NOT ON YOUR LIFE. I had to lose weight before surgery. I had to meet with psychiatrists, cardiologists, pulmonologists, and nutritionists. I had to go on an extreme pre-surgery diet, then have only a liquid diet for 3 weeks, and soft foods for 5 more weeks. I get nothing with more than 5 grams of sugar for 6 months. And not one single cheat day is allowed or even possible. And that is aside from a painful surgery and recovery. It is no shortcut.

It’s also worth noting it is only available to people with a BMI over 40 or over 35 with a significant comorbidity like diabetes. People that need to lose a few pounds cannot get it, it’s only people needing significant weight loss.

So, to be frank, you have no idea what you are talking about. Being fat is unhealthy, but the best medical advice to reduce obesity you think is wrong. Guess people like me should just die?

No, I think we should listen to our doctors, not judgmental people on the internet citing misleading facts. The research shows bariatric surgery has better, healthier results.

More studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8012340/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1700459

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/research-areas/obesity/longitudinal-assessment-bariatric-surgery

Rapid changes in weight tho, in either direction, are well established for having permanent harmful effects. It also tends to make it more difficult to maintain weight loss, and more likely someone actually increases in weight over time.

This is a valid criticism of the Biggest Loser, but My 600 Lb Life generally culminates with bariatric surgery, which has some of the best long term outcomes for maintaining weight loss.

You sounded like you were claiming that. Do you realize there is a difference between the end of a LICENCE and the end of something’s functional life? You were claiming that because the LICENCE was only good for 40 years (the longest license the feds issued) that it was somehow the end of the PLANT’S useful life.

As I said elsewhere, they applied for a 20-year renewal, NY sued, and the high costs of fighting for the renewal led them to settle and shut it down. But NONE of that means that the plant was some falling apart scrapheap that needed closed, which is what I took from what you said.

The Great Lakes presents a difficult problem for offshore wind. Since it is fresh water and not salt water, you have to deal with far more ice. Ice beats the shit out of anything left on the lake. Though, with climate change going the way it is, maybe it won’t be a problem at all.

Yeah, here in Ohio things are run by Republicans. The party of small government wants to block most renewable development in the state. And renewable energy is certainly no cheaper here. They have also helped utilities more to more fixed cost billing that makes solar (and also electrifying in place of natural gas) not economically feasible for many.

And I’m not sure picking a supplier that promises renewables, anyway. It’s not like you get to pick and choose the electrons that come to your home. You get whatever is on the grid.

I’ve checked and rechecked my power bill. Definitely not cheaper.

I live in the Great Lakes, where essentially it is cloudy 90% of the time from October-April. My home has a relative roof that faces east and west, not south. Rooftop solar does not pay for itself here so easily. And that is besides the regulations the power companies have placed on it, essentially eliminating even net metering and only giving you pennies for excess power production.

The planet can’t wait a decade while we build out renewables. We have to keep what nuclear we have going at least.

We can keep the existing plants we have going. And even in the future, I believe there is space for nuclear. It is still far more consistent at generating power.

And I doubt renewables will make power cheaper.

Listen, the companies building gas turbine generators are not stupid. They know they will run for decades. Renewable energy, while good, just cannot meet increasing demands for power on its own.

Well, nuclear can be profitable. It’s just that fossil fuels are more profitable.

But this is also where the government needs to step in. There should be a carbon tax to account for the climate change externality. Also, clean sources of power including nuclear should be subsidized.

Keep in mind that while environmentalists maybe can’t stop it, some of them happily join a coalition with NIMBYs and indeed, fossil fuel companies to stop nuclear.

Their 40 year license with the nuclear regulatory commission ran out and they felt that getting it relicensed was too expensive.

No, they applied for a 20-year renewal but faced pushback from the state of New York and were forced to close in a legal settlement.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47776

Indian Point’s owner-operator, Entergy, retired Units 2 and 3 before their operating licenses expired as part of a settlement agreement with New York State. Entergy had been seeking a 20-year license renewal for both reactor units since 2007. However, New York challenged the renewals, citing environmental and safety concerns resulting from the plant’s nearness to New York City.

So when my driver’s license expires after 8 years, my driving ability has reached EOL, and I should not be able to renew. Sound logic there.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Other plants have been granted license renewals and are operating just fine.

thats past its expected service life

Citation needed. It received a 40-year permit to start because that was the max permit issued.

Lots of things last well past their “expected service life.” That is why there is the word EXPECTED. The problem was in the spent fuel pools. They could build brand new ones.

Tell me, what was the expected service life of the Brooklyn Bridge? Should people avoid it because continuing to use it is “a recipe for disaster?”

The fact is, intensive inspections would have been required for another permit to continue operating.

Listen, if you think we should build newer and better nuclear power plants, I am right with you. But until that happens, we cannot just flush what we have down the toilet.

Should we build wind and solar? Absolutely. But we also need green power that works when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, and that is what Indian Point gave the state of NY for decades.

It absolutely is inflammatory. Its specifically trying to conflate environmental concerns of polluted groundwater with carbon emissions, to make it seem like the people who voiced those concerns are idiots.

It cites a “green win.” The groundwater issue is absolutely a green issue.

But even then, those pushing to close it down claimed it would be replaced by green energy. The National Resourced Defence Council claimed that “Indian Point Is Closing, but Clean Energy Is Here to Stay.” The claimed that “because of New York’s landmark 2019 climate legislation and years of clean energy planning and investments by the state, New York is better positioned today than ever to achieve its ambitious climate and clean energy goals without this risky plant.”

So, yes, it was absolutely advertised as a climate win that the NY would easily replace it with renewable energy, even when those 3 gas turbine plants were being bought online.