This part of it could hardly have been retained unaltered.
This part of it could hardly have been retained unaltered.
My question was about the stricter limits on purchasing alcohol or lottery tickets in the US (which were brought up in the comment I originally replied to), because that was the first time I heard about that. I was curious what those alluded-to limits were, and I still have zero idea.
> legally required maximum working hours
Neither of these apply in the context of full-time salaried US investment banking jobs that the parent comment is referring to.
People work these jobs and hours because the compensation and career advancement can be extremely lucrative.
People who worry about things like limiting their work hours do not take these jobs.
Why is this the “only way”? The issue is this study seems to have manipulated its procedure to arrive at a preset conclusion. There are a lot of seemingly valid problems pointed out with it. Shouldn’t that be enough to contest it without the burden or cost or time of an “opposing” study?
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/data-vs.-doubt-danish-scient...
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/landmark-danish-study-on-alu...
I'm sure that, as usual, the methodology of this particular study can be debated and people can disagree over exactly which conclusions can be drawn from it. That's not a reason to withdraw it from publication.
This one is very similar. I bought mine from Thailand
There is simply more people online now than in 2010.
Something similar happened recently with A320 when it didn't want to land on an airfield during emergency unless it was flown in a special mode. But F-35 doesn't have that?
Are you sure? I can’t seem to find any references to any such incident.