So today you can say "The Average intelligence of the Somali people is below retarded," and you're absolutely 100% correct. However, this does not account for the Somalis who have against tremendous odds inherited smart genes. And if they have as many children as they can with each other, perhaps in hundreds of years they can reverse that.
No. That's not how population change works. In order for a particular allele to increase in frequency either it needs to have a competitive advantage such that it confers an advantage to those bearing it in survival and breeding, or there needs to be a catastrophe which creates a small and isolated population whereby the founder effect can take hold. Neither of these conditions hold in Somalia. It's possible to be an idiot there and still survive and breed, and they're not going to suffer a catastrophic population collapse any time soon.
TL;DR They're doomed until further notice.
I can't justify punishing someone for something they either didn't do or didn't approve.
If the CEO didn't approve of this then that would imply he was overruled by the Board of Directors, which makes a whole bunch of people liable for this crap.
When I first read this comment I read it as implying maybe the CEO didn't know what was going on, and that raises an interesting point: Maybe he should have a legal obligation to know what's going on in the company he alleges manages. Put another way: no one should have a blanket limitation of liability and control over how a company operates. A lot of the nuttiness in our world comes from extending limited liability from limited partners to people who properly are general partners. At least when such people were treated as general partners they had a valid reason for their absurd compensation packages.
TL;DR Don't mind me, just going off on a tangent on how this sort of dumb shit happens in the first place because of the perversion of liability laws.
...in which case they'll just start punching buttons at random because, to be frank, most people are low-information voters. They show up, vote on the few issues they care about, and then select shit at random for everything else (because they're required to mark SOMETHING). Honestly we'd probably be better off if people could legitimately vote to abstain on specific issues or races but still vote on the issues they care about.
You call those comfy tunes? Donnie Iris got you covered.
They're marxists who refuse to believe in a classless meritocracy and want to perpetuate their dystopian nightmare of class warfare on the rest of us because they're so riddled with hubris that they believe their nonsense is right.... so... yeah.
So what if it would? The secret ballot was not a part of our elections until roughly 1884 when states began adopting the Australian Ballot (as it was popularly called). Having full verifiability of the vote would effectively end voting shenanigans as every vote could be traced back to an eligible voter BY ANYONE. You'll be neither safer nor in greater danger than you are now, since the secret ballot's protection is predicated on the lie that the state and its lackeys won't try to intimidate you for your choices, which as these riots have shown is clearly not the case.
Guess I'm not alone. I was just mailing the mods about this a moment ago.