That’s true, but if you start reading it with the mixtape meaning in mind (I tried it) you get a little emotional lift, followed by a sad drop as you finish the headline. And that’s with foreknowledge, and I’m not even into Legos like I imagine they are. So let’s be kind. This isn’t Reddit.
I don’t think CBS would use it in the “new mixtape just dropped” sense, but even if you felt it was ambiguous, you should be able to determine which one it was by the part about it not reducing emissions. It wouldn’t make sense for Lego to start selling an eco-friendly product line that wasn’t eco-friendly.
Try reading it with the mixtape meaning in mind and see how it adds to your disappointment by the time you finish the headline. It’s like a setup for a sad joke.
Basically, while you have to be 35 to run for president (and be a natural-born citizen of the US and be a resident of the US for 14 years), there’s no age cap on running for president. It’s been that way ever since George Washington became president, and changing that would require an amendment to the US Constitution.
you should have to be within 10 years of the median age of the country to run for president, to ensure you are actually in touch with the country you are going to govern, and the people in it, and the problems they have.
The “issue” with that is that, typically, most elected officials work their way up the ladder. Generally speaking, first, they’re mayor of a city, then governor, then they typically run for a federal office, be it president or congressman/ congresswoman. If they run for Congress, there’s a chance they may run for president later down the line.
There are other options to pick from in a climb to the top, so this is just a general idea. Basically, they have to make a name for themselves on the national political stage before they have a chance at winning the presidency. So that’s what they try to do when working their way up the ladder.
Funny, it didnt stop Bill Clinton, or Obama, or Kennedy, from achieving office while being within roughly 10 years of the median age of the country, or having names for themselves.
It’s a Monday in September, but with schools closed, the three children in the Pruente household have nowhere to be. Callahan, 13, contorts herself into a backbend as 7-year-old Hudson fiddles with a balloon and 10-year-old Keegan plays the piano.
Really wish articles wouldn’t say dumb shit like this. Just tell us the information without making it all dramatized.
Reminds me of school where some teachers would encourage us to write like this to “immerse” the reader, but yeah, this unnecessary scenery painting is just fluff that shouldn’t be in a news article. Just get to the point, please.
Kids! They’re lazy, narcissistic, and disrespectful — or so says the older generation. But when you look back through history, you’ll discover that older generations have been saying a version of the same thing for thousands of years. Our question is: Why? And we found an answer.
Boss clearly isn't online much to see their content.
I've worked with Gen-Zers and have never seen this specific issue. Sounds like another example of a boss so removed from workers that their "insights" aren't based on experiences, but rather on that deadly combo of the tendency of older generations to negatively see generational changes, and that corporate group think where they try to justify not paying their workers their value.
It also sounds like a touch of the corporate group think where they forgot how much their employers had to teach them on the job, and how much they don't want to continue doing that.
Ah yes because it’s the worker’s responsibility to ensure that they are aware of all safety issues and health hazards and all safety equipment first, exists period, and second, works perfectly at all times.
It’s actually an OSHA violation if the employers don’t make the workers aware of all that. All hazards have to be clearly communicated to the workers. If they don’t know the safety issues and necessary safety equipment, the employer fucked up. There’s practically no way for the worker to ever be at fault here unless they are willfully disobeying the employer to do something they know is unsafe.
Even then you could argue the employer should’ve known better than to hire them lmao
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.