The article is about unpaid rent from the covid era. You can only make the landlords take on the debt for so long before larger financial repercussions occur. The right solution would have been for the state to take it on, but that would require *gasp* socialism

Chinese listed owner. Chinese representative. Mysterious purpose with unknown source of funds. Not too hard to connect the dots.

Edit: Apparently people don't realise Chinese can refer to ethnicity as well as nationality. Yes, it would be ideal if we had different terms for the two.

Both the owner and representative of the company are Chinese, so why wouldn't she think that?

Also, how many other countries would be interested in maintaining a bioweapons facility in the US?

Biased title. Why should gender matter in law? This is a blatant attempt to tug at emotions. And they try to focus on '31 grams' instead of 'a year's supply'. Take that clickbait back to reddit.

Edit since a lot of people think I'm discussing the sentencing. I'm not, I'm discussing the article itself. My reasoning:

Why I find the headline objectionable:

1. Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she's female, or how long is it's been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It's not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it's a device to invoke emotions.
2. Choice of wording about the quantity. 'A year's supply' would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.

Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).

Reddit has been shit, but let's be honest. That sub was filled to the brim with illegal offers for money. Lawsuits waiting to happen.

Why IS skiplagging illegal, anyway? Is there actually a practical reason for it?

Will we need mobile phones to play it?

nobody can respect that others are allowed to have different opinions.

It's the paradox of tolerance social contract. I will respect their right to an opinion as long as they uphold that contract. Unfortunately, many don't.

It's a bad attitude to tell an unapologetic transphobe to get lost?

Edit: In case you didn't realise, that's the user this entire post is complaining about.

A better question would be - what DIDN'T they cancel? Here's a list of Netflix Originals they cancelled:

https://decider.com/list/canceled-netflix-original-shows/

That list also doesn't seem to include shows that were informed they were getting cut, so ended it prematurely.

Stop blaming the pandemic. The reason Netflix can't hold on to customers is they canceled everything worth watching.

They are altering the deal. Pray they don't alter it any further.

Actually, pray they do.