Assuming it survives the fall to the bottom of the elevator shaft, the building management should be able to retrieve it for you.

At first I thought this was an announcement from Microsoft.

Krombiception, of course.

…you do have krombiception, don’t you?

“Expressed greater intent to commit rape”

I would really like to know how they measured this. I get the feeling that the men being studied didn’t come out and state, “yes, I have a greater intent to rape” on a survey or something. The researchers must have been using something as a proxy for “intent to rape”.

I’d also like to see the stats for how many of the men have actually raped someone. For example, if 86% are rated as “more likely to rape” after watching porn, but 99.9% don’t rape anyone, then that would suggest there is no correlation between porn and rape.

I’m sorry, sir. I flunked flank.

According to my extensive 30 seconds of research, the difference is that a sauce is an integral ingredient, but a condiment is added after the dish is served. In which case, ketchup can be either or both, even in the same dish.

Merde

Each decade of age took me half as long as the previous one did.

0-10 took forever

10-20 took 20 years

20-30 took 10 years

30-40 took 5 years

And I fear it only gets worse.

Parent: Say “dad”

Baby: “Dad”

Don’t leave us hanging. Who won the argument?

I just assume that’s the tile that the captcha system itself isn’t sure about, and it will accept it either way.

Our savior!

Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise.

“Not do anything useful” would be more accurate than “do nothing”. But that’s just my tl;dr.

[…] the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies […]

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/

tl;dr:

1. The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
2. The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
3. The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory

As an audience member, no. We saw the final confrontation between them.

Picard and friends, on the other hand, have legitimate reason to be suspicious.

But the resolution passed anyway, which is why world hunger has disappeared.

You should cut diagonally. If it makes a sandwich better, imagine what it can do for a novel.

Tom Hanks in “Big”?

https://youtu.be/RsDj2fzEGdM?t=65