Alue42

You can have your mirrors adjusted properly while still looking over your shoulder. I posted above that I was taught how to properly adjust my mirrors I I've never had blind spots, but I still always look over my shoulders - including opening my door as the Dutch do (open the driver door with your right hand, not the left, because this forces you to reach across yourself and thus turn to see what might be coming towards you and you might open your door into)

Yes, they do.

I was taught in driver's ed back in the 90's how to correctly set my mirrors, but apparently I'm the only one who paid attention, because everyone else did that "adjust the mirror so you can see the handle of the back door" thing WITHOUT the leaning all the way to both sides thing. It's like it's been ingrained in everyone's heads without there ever being a reason, just like how we all got the idea to blow into Nintendo cartridges and it was a worldwide thing even though we didn't have the Internet or anything to spread it around and I'm fact it actually might have caused issues.

I have absolutely no issues backing into parking spots like other commenters are saying, even though I've had my mirrors adjusted properly on every car I've ever had, and I don't have blind spots. My twin got into my car (I say that to make it clear we are the same height and use the same seat adjustment) and she got so confused driving my car and noted that my mirrors were set so oddly, and I said "no, they are set properly". I ended up digging out a old driver's ed book from highschool at my parents' house to show her how to set them and the page titled "the myth of blind spots". She hasn't changed her mirrors, she likes where hers are.

But it can dictate how federal agencies refer to geographic regions.

A private company or private citizen can do as it sees fits.

This year in particular, conservatives are not just a boomer thing. There was a surprising amount of young male voters for Trump this year, mostly led in by the podcasters/commentators favored by that demographic (Joe Rogan, Andrew Tate, ya know, assholes). So it's no surprise Trump changed his tune on the tiktok ban because he now wants to make sure these people (and people taking about these people) can still share their ridiculous thoughts and therefore become a hivemind and then all support him. Initially Trump wanted to ban tiktok, and it had nothing to do with user security or Chinese data mining, though that's what the people around him made it into - it was because tiktok was how word was spread to embarrass him at his rallies.

All this to say - age has nothing to do with conservatism. Even back when I was in high school and college, there were always those asshole kids that cared way too much about their parents' wealth and how it was taxed and had the views of an old white man.

Didn't this also happen on Reddit when people were posting the alternatives? Links/posts got removed, the subreddit about alternatives got shut down

I am fully aware of the terrible things that have happened with ivermectin, the fraudulent clinical trials, the plagiarized data and papers, etc. The papers you linked to used patients that had already died, already been hospitalized, etc as data points, and various other forms of fraud and bad ethics. Does that negate the study that showed that pathway in which that medication is actually supposed to work if people had actually read it properly?

Edit to add: the paper I'm referring to didn't claim ivermectin cured Covid. It claims ivermectin treated the already existing parasites, thus giving the immune system a better chance at fighting Covid. Whereas the papers being retracted fraudulently claimed a link between ivermectin and Covid using false data.

In the beginning of Covid, a doctor in very rural India started treating Covid patients with ivermectin and they got better. So the doctor wrote a paper about it, and this paper was touted as proof that ivermectin was the cure for Covid, and nowadays everything.

Because schools don't stress science literacy, what people didn't notice in the paper was that WHY ivermectin helped these patients with their Covid infections is because they ALSO had multiple parasites because they were living in a very rural area and rarely sought medical help, and therefore their immune system was already overburdened dealing with the parasites. By treating the parasites with ivermectin, their immune systems were able to focus on Covid and actually fight through it. This was all explained in the paper, people just didn't read past the title, clearly.

Ivermectin is prescribed for humans - specifically in the cases of parasites. We need to get back to teaching science literacy and critical thinking in schools.

This is an age group that does need guidance through, and it's looking for it, and if not provided with a positive role model will latch on to any that they can find.

As an example, look at "Gregory's Garden Goofballs" episode from Abbott Elementary. A group of the older kids start hanging out in Gregory's classroom because he's the "cool teacher" and he gets uncomfortable with it, especially when they start asking him advice about girls and because he doesn't have his free time anymore. But then he realizes this can be a good thing and that if they are hanging out with him and he's giving them advice, at least they are with a positive role model. So he sacrifices his free time to be the positive force for the older kids that aren't even his students, because otherwise they might gravitate to a less positive source.

Others have given you a lot of info here on what it is your brother is referring to.
But what this is reflecting in your brother is that he has fallen into a pipeline of watching these videos or hanging out with people that watch these videos and had some insecurities that he's dealing with that is making these ideas seem like the answer. It would be a great idea to be supportive of him in whatever other hobbies/activities he has outside of watching those videos and spending time with him. Talk with him about anything other than the content of those videos so that those thoughts aren't even entering his mind. Introduce him to your friends that are also supportive in something other than those videos (you don't mention your ages, so it's unclear if you know the same people). Having supportive people around his activities and hobbies will help him lose some of those insecurities that made him gravitate to those videos.

If that fails, what I've seen others say works is if says he's an alpha male say back "I'm not into that furry stuff, but that's really cool your so open with your sexuality like that, and accepting of others' sexualities like recognizing the beta males"

Everyone that lives in California (and thus the evac zone) would know to check CalFire (ie, www.fire.ca.gov) for any wildfire maps before looking at any other source because it would be the most accurate and most up to date.

Wildfires are such a common thing (car off the side of the state/interstate hwy, brush fire set off by a homeless encampment in public land, massive forest fire, etc - all would be on CalFire; for a local building fire you would have to check local authorities). We all know if we see smoke to check CalFire to get the details and if it's heading our way. It even shows things happening in Mexico and nearby states in case it's heading towards us.

Could be dishonest opportunistic propaganda from this guy

This, or someone completely unfamiliar with California

There are multiple issues with this method, though.

First of all, United Way takes a great deal of money of the donated funds off the top for themselves and only 7 cents of every dollar actually make it to the chosen organization. So it would be much better for you to donate directly to the organization so they receive 100% of your donation.

Secondly, when you donate money through your paycheck (or at the register when shopping), this is added to the the pool of money that the company claims as being donated as a "corporate donation" which comes off of their taxes at the end of the year and to make it seem like good PR for them (ie, "Publix gave X amount of dollars to charity this year"), all the while none of it actually coming out of their own account book.

Absolutely no one should know if you did or didn't contribute through your paycheck, and if that is being used as a reason to limit your promotion potential please speak to HR (I know you are no longer there, but others may need to hear this, or you may have a future employer that uses a similar system).

For such a major claim by the accused and his lawyer, you'd think they would have an assessment by a psychiatrist or psychologist to diagnose Dissociative Identity Disorder and therefore would be noted in the article. Otherwise it would seem like he's just using the commonly misused term as an excuse. But hey, I'm not a lawyer that leaves places open for the other side to poke holes, what do I know?