Universal Standard

... pour utiliser n'importe quelle carte standard, de la plus discrète jusqu'au... la gamme AuBox évoquent un universal audio jack, ce qui désigne... un combo casque+micro au standard TRRS CTIA, comme sur presque...

... series is supported by the Universal Printer Driver, however the 3600... the standard UPD not work, you may also want to try the Smart Universal...

...️ Tires have ECHO technology totally universal to all vehicles but was... of an inch in the standard 235 vs 245 $270 for ... realize these are not a standard size for C-1 C-2 but ...

...️ Tires have ECHO technology totally universal to all vehicles but was... of an inch in the standard 235 vs 245 $270 for ...

...️ Tires have ECHO technology totally universal to all vehicles but was... of an inch in the standard 235 vs 245 $270 for ...

...️ Tires have ECHO technology totally universal to all vehicles but was... of an inch in the standard 235 vs 245 $270 for ...

I keep seeing Universal Standard recommended for plus size clothing and I need honest reviews before I let them seduce my credit card. I want polished, higher-quality pieces: basics, wide leg pants, workwear, layering pieces, and clothes that can handle real life without falling apart emotionally or physically. Also very open to other plus size brands that are emit grown a** woman energy. submitted by /u/ThatHylianGuy to r/LawBitchesWithTaste [link] [comments]

UC admissions officers use a variety of metrics and considerations to make admissions decisions, including high school GPA, extracurricular activities, and personal essays. However, one specific metric has come under significant scrutiny since 2020: standardized testing. The SAT and ACT are the two primary tests used in admissions by U.S. colleges. In response to a lawsuit claiming the tests are discriminatory, UC dropped the tests from its admission process in 2020. Based on an analysis of multiple empirical studies on the effect of standardized testing on admissions, the evidence suggests that the decision by UC was counterproductive: - Eliminating test results from admissions took away an important tool that helped admissions officers identify high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds who otherwise might have been overlooked. - SAT math scores are especially valuable as an indicator of quantitative readiness for STEM curriculum, helping to identify students who are likely to excel in the curriculum, and those who are likely to struggle. - Importantly, removing standardized testing eliminated all of these benefits without eliminating socioeconomic bias. It simply shifted the socioeconomic inequalities into other parts of the students’ applications. - Evidence shows that 74.5 percent of the Black–White test score gap is due to unequal access to resources and opportunities, and is not due to an inherently racially-flawed exam. These unequal access factors shape not only standardized test scores, but GPA, extracurricular activities, and virtually all other aspects of college applications. - Removing test scores from the admissions process weakened UC’s ability to evaluate academic readiness while ignoring the real causes of racial disparity. If UC’s admissions goal is fairness and accurate prediction of student success, the most logical decision is a test-optional policy that strengthens merit-based evaluations, not pretending that a test-free policy is a replacement for the deeper systemic reforms that achieving equity actually requires. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20260323-eliminating-standardized-testing submitted by /u/stunnashakes to r/California [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/SactoGamer to r/mtg [link] [comments]

Read on for detailed report of what I got and how much I paid. Unfortunately I think the boxes are declining in quality because US is declining in quality. I generally wear a 22/24/26ish, but ordered everything in XL because I wanted to be sure it wasn't too small. What I got: * The denim box - $140. three pairs of high-waisted, acid wash jeggings. Two in black and one in blue. They feel incredibly cheap and spandexy but are so tight at the calves and ankles they are cutting off circulation to my feet, but huge on top. I actually had this happen before with something I ordered from them and they said it must have been sewn incorrectly and replaced it. I'm guessing this may be a quality issue with larger sizes. The knit top box - ~$99. Three tencel tops. All very cheap and slinky feeling. One, the foundation short sleeve is so small my friend who is literally ten sizes smaller felt it was a little clingy when I let her try it on, but it was incredibly long on both of us. The other two aren't quite that small, but they are definitely undersized and strangely shaped. One of these, a boxy crop top might be wearable. I don't mind tencel but this is just bad sizing and low quality fabric. No one would think these were worth $30 a piece, much less the regular price. The Starter Box - $175. No one on Earth would think this was a good introduction to the basics! It includes a pair of bright bright orange-red pants that are somewhere between a ponte pant and leggings. Extremely tight all over and the fabric is so thin and clingy you can literally see every hair on my legs making a bump in the fabric...except the waistband is big and gappy. To top it all off, they don't even feel good on. Truly a bizarre combination of uncomfortable and deeply ugly. This almost feels like a fake item or some kind of joke. A transparent white dress shirt. The fit isn't great but I guess I can layer it. A decent jean jacket in black, though the sleeves are tight while the body of the jacket is huge and boxy. A teal turtleneck the color color is decent but the neck itself is strangely tight. It's rayon and polyester. So overall one decent item (the black jean jacket), two or three tops that aren't just garbage (one of the tencel and half credit for the transparent dress shirt and turtleneck) for $423. None of the tops have decent fit or fabric. Never, ever again. For what it's worth, I know the jeggings are very popular with people who are extremely apple shaped with very thin calves and ankles, so I might be putting those up on Poshmark or something. submitted by /u/SeasonPositive6771 to r/PlusSizeFashion [link] [comments]

Universal Standard released a January edit called “A Touch of Class,” and for the item cover photos, they largely used one model wearing a size XXS. Obviously, not *every* item is this way — and sometimes another model is used when you click into the listing. But even the cover images that aren’t displayed in an XXS are midsized models who don’t look visibly fat. At a time when we’re being rammed with ads for Ozempic and Ro, and plus size clothing options are being ripped out of stores, it’s frustrating to see this choice made by a brand built on the inclusion of fat women and the “standard” of bodies not being small. And then there’s the subtext of the edit being called “a touch of class.” It reinforces the narrative that fat women can’t look classy — or don’t deserve to be seen as classy. Beyond that, their pricing is out of control. I want their employees to be paid a thriving wage, but dear God, a polyester double breasted blazer need not be $370. They’re delusional. submitted by /u/AnathemaDevice2100 to r/PlusSizeFashion [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/JTheBlockBreaker to r/NoMansSkyTheGame [link] [comments]