Answer:
Researchers surveyed more than 7,500 adults between the ages of 18 to 68 who chose to answer online survey questions at the end of a French television program about the secrets of happiness. People were asked questions to determine their personality through subjects like conscientiousness and emotional stability, and then told the re-answer the questions as if they were 10 years older and younger. The "past" and "future" answers were then compared to people who were in corresponding age groups at the time of taking the survey.
The results showed that people predicted they would change less over 10 years compared to responses from those who looked back 10 years and realized how much they had changed.
For example, 68-year-olds said they had experienced modest personality changes over the past 10 years, while surveyed 58-year-olds predicted very little if any change in the coming decade, even though their own survey results showed they had changed their personality over the past 10 years, according to Science.
Explanation:
Answer:
The correct answer is "The movement of cattle from grasslands to train depots"
If this helped, dont hesitate to follow and give a Brainliest. <33
Answer:
Don't take things personally.
2) Share your disappointment privately.
3) Ask for constructive feedback.
4) Review your job search process.
5) Network with the interviewer.
6) Take a break.
7) Move on.
Explanation:
Answer:
Glendale was not able to prove that the ordinance directly advanced the claim of interest in public safety.
Explanation:
Pagan v. Fruchey and Village of Glendale is a case in which Christopher Pagan wanted to sell his car and put a for sale sign on it and parked it on a city street. Because of this, he received a notice that his car was in violation of a city ordinance that didn't allow him to do this. He filed a suit claiming that the law was unconstitutional because it violated his First Amendment right. Pagan won because Glendale couldn't provide enough evidence that the ordinance had the goal of avoiding a potential harm. It was considered that the law didn't serve a government interest in public safety.
