Not exact matches
Generally and
broadly speaking, in order for someone to
accept a settlement of a
claim from an insurance company, they are giving up their rights to further pursue the
claim, in one form or another.
The scientific (i.e. «apolitical») approach to criticising the idea of sustainability can only go so far, and almost has to
accept that, if the «science» relating to some
claim about an unsustainable activity is right, then the sustainable agenda more
broadly is right.
The polarisation might be primarily over the presence of the unambiguous «c» word in the
claim - dropping it may well allow for more nuance, but it can not be a condition of the
claim being more
broadly accepted — as it might still be untrue.
If you value science it is wise not to brush aside
broadly accepted scientific insights too easily, lest you have very good arguments for doing so («extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence»).
Generally and
broadly speaking, in order for someone to
accept a settlement of a
claim from an insurance company, they are giving up their rights to further pursue the
claim, in one form or another.
The argument puts pressure on both Ledger and its millions of users, who had until now
broadly accepted the company's
claims its wallets were 100 % secure.