I’m not saying that they couldn’t improve on it, but honestly, that bar chart doesn’t look too damning to the UK to me:
So, okay, they’re behind the EU-14 (though not the EU as a whole) and North America/Oceania, but they’re also ahead of every other listed entry.
Unless there’s more text that isn’t quoted, the article title doesn’t seem to reflect the article body text.
This is what the article title says:
NASA instructs employees to remove pronouns from all work communications
This is what the article body says:
“In response to the Executive Orders, NASA has disabled features in id.nasa.gov and Teams that allows users to add pronouns in their display name in Microsoft Outlook and Teams,” the email reads. “For users who have previously added pronouns to their display name, those pronouns will be automatically removed from the system this week.”
It also references a signature block, says that it’s standardizing on one, and I suppose that a current one could contain a pronoun:
“In addition,” the email says, “NASA has adopted a uniform signature block for emails that are sent using any nasa.gov email address. All users (civil servants, contractors, and grantees) must modify their signature block to follow the appropriate signature block… the signature block should not include additional embellishment.”
That body text doesn’t seem to me to say that pronouns can’t be used in work communications. It says that they are removed from three points:
The display name in Microsoft Outlook.
The display name in Microsoft Teams.
Email signature blocks. The quoted text doesn’t mention pronouns, but one assumes that maybe one could contain them, though I’d think that there it’s more-likely to be an honorific, like “Mr.”, “Mrs.”, etc.
I don’t believe, based on that body text, that use of pronouns would be prohibited in, say, email text or chats, or whatever. Like, if someone sent out a message to their team, “Jim and I are going out to lunch, and he’s offered to pay for anyone else on the team who is coming”, from the article text, I don’t believe that that’d be prohibited. As someone else points out below with some example text, that’d probably be impractical (especially given existing text that does use pronouns).
I’d say that it’s probably one of the easier places, actually, because post-9/11, there’s a lot of security at the Super Bowl, whether-or-not a President is there. Like, they already have overhead marksmen and airspace restrictions and stuff, which is the sort of stuff that you’d put on the President at an event.
I believe that the Super Bowl is considered to be a potential target because of its high visibility.
IIRC, even before that, Tom Clancy had one of his books involve terrorists blowing up the Super Bowl with a small nuclear weapon.
kagis
Yeah, The Sum of All Fears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sum_of_All_Fears
The terrorists’ plan is to detonate the weapon at the Super Bowl in Denver while simultaneously staging a false flag attack on U.S. military forces in stationed in Berlin by East Germans disguised as Soviet soldiers.
I will say that my experience with paper straws has been pretty disappointing. They’re…usable, but a considerably-worse experience if you’re nursing a drink all day. They get soggy and tend to collapse. They get started on biodegrading a lot more-quickly than I’d like.
I think that maybe a better answer than “use paper” is “use plastic that biodegrades in a shorter period of time than existing plastic straws”.
Like, I don’t really care about the wall thickness of my straw. I don’t need a lot of flexibility. I’m okay with paying more for straws, as they’re pretty cheap. Straws that are shipped in paper wrappers, as is generally the case here in restaurants, don’t need UV light resistance. I’d think that somewhere out there, there’s a plastic that trades off some of those properties to be long-term biodegradable.