You mean the one getting laid and rejecting labels? That's the life.

Pretending that climate friendly beef is possible and then branding it 'Brazen' is some top quality trolling.

This is the same company who tried to maximize employee deaths during covid and is bringing back child labour.

Trump didn't want to win in 2016. His whole candidacy was basically a shit post gone awry, and that was so expensive that it may still cost us democracy in the US.

I don't think you can presume to know what he expected when he hasn't said what he expected, or to know the effect it's had within a handful of days.

Trying to take your own life out of depression and being willing to give your life to a cause differ in intent, goals, context and likely methods.

What benefits do you see from classifying them as the same thing? They seem very different to me.

Starting ones self on fire is a suicide attempt, regardless of political motive.

Is being a soldier assigned to conduct an assault operation also a suicide attempt?

Knowingly doing something that might kill you is not the sole criteria for a suicide attempt. If they weren't suicidal it wasn't a suicide attempt.

They were suicidal

I've not heard any reporting say this. I've seen internet commenters presume this, but just because someone engaged in an action that could result in their death, doesn't mean they're suicidal.

I don't think it's realistic to assume you understand the mental state of someone who's already proved they are capable of setting themselves on fire to make a point.

Why would you think that people who have the courage to act on their principles would regret it?

The amount of self determination it must take to smell the gasoline and still strike the match makes me think that the people who do this are capable of living with the consequences of their actions.

The reason drug ads all say "may cause [list of terrible things]" ultimately traces back to thalidomide.

The system which requires the monitoring and reporting of potentially adverse events, even after a drug has got through trials is called pharmacovigilance. That's what generates the data those risks are based on and it was developed in the wake of the thalidomide disaster to help prevent it from happening again.

This is quite reassuring - if medvedev said it you know there's no chance it could possibly happen.

I'm not sure I understand your point so if I'm off base let me know.

Firstly, inheriting $200k - $1M doesn't keep anyone poor. It doesn't even stop wealth from concentrating at a level that harms others and warps society - it just prevents that level of wealth from passing down to people who did nothing.

Secondly, if everyone was poor who would be controlling them? You have to keep most people poor and a much smaller group of people unassailably wealthy to control them. That's exactly the problem that high death taxes address.