You have to appreciate the level of audacity required for a catholic organization to claim they are protecting children from harms regarding sexuality.
The truth is that there was a lot more available in the early days of Netflix than there is now, which with some rose-tinted glasses may very well make it seem like Netflix had everything.
It wasn't until studios caught on to the fact that streaming was going to significantly eat into cable subscription revenues that they began pulling their licenses so they could start their own streaming services.
The "that happened" term seems a supremely important part of the title given the "is science fiction" term before it, as it clarifies the cyberattack isn't a made-up story. In contrast, the target, Hugging Face, is merely a detail that can be left for discovery upon reading the article. It's less important who was attacked than that the attack actually happened.
Without knowing the exact character limit for titles and without having the motivation this late at night to count the current title length, you may also be able to drop the "accidental" to fit in "that happened", but I worry that leaves too much of a door open for someone to interpret the attack as deliberate. As such, I strongly prefer my first option.
Under Obama's deal with them, Iran was quite content to not have nukes. Had the deal not been torn up, they'd likely never acquire nuclear capability in our lifetimes.
Trump's unprovoked attacks on them were not only extremely costly due to the Strait of Hormuz closing, but it underscored why Iran absolutely needs nukes to protect themselves. It's virtually guaranteed they'll attain nuclear weapons inside the next decade now.
That's what happens when you elect a narcissistic fraudster to run your country and its foreign policy.
You are the one in this thread who comes off as gullible. You seem to have bought the post-facto and baldly pretextual narrative that the war both had the objective of delivering Iran of nuclear capability and is achieving that objective.
You want to try that again? Because that is the opposite of what I believe.
Recent event was the continuing effort to prevent Iran getting nukes since 2005.
It's a pretty well-established fact that children of two-parent families have significantly better outcomes than those of single-parent families.
However, I'll concede its juxtaposition with overall whiteness and Spanish language fluency as additional metrics of population-level success are highly suspect, even if we grant that being a white, English-first speaker may contribute significantly to an individual's success (for reasons which include the unsavory).
> It's a pretty well-established fact that children of two-parent families have significantly better outcomes than those of single-parent families
Does there being children from single-parent families in the same school as your child lead to your child having significantly worse outcomes?
Recall the context from the article:
>> For example: an American family in 1975 could send their children to public school on the assumption that the vast majority of other children would belong to intact families, communities like their own, and would speak English as a first language. Now, realistically, many parents must turn to private schooling for the same reassurances.
It is listing things about other children that it implies drag down your child and so leads parents to turn to private schooling.
You'll want to specify what type of beef. The price per pound varies immensely based upon what cut you're getting.
$6.97/lb is a price I can only assume refers to ground beef. Once you start talking about steaks, though, the price climbs rather quickly. Near me, sirloin regularly clocks between $14-16/lb, and NY strip/ribeye at the best of times may go on sale for close to $20/lb, but they also regularly exceed $30/lb.
Of course, we largely only need to worry about the security vulnerabilities because manufacturers increasingly hook our hardware up to the internet so they can exfiltrate data about us.
There were 2,977 victims in the 9/11 attacks. This doesn't come close to cracking the top 10 leading causes of death, which are annual numbers.
The top 2 are Heart Disease at 683K and Cancer at 619K.
For terrorism to be an equivalent threat, 9/11 scale attacks would need to occur ~230 times a year, or just shy of 2 out of every 3 days.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11...
See: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
reply