equivalency

The most glaring and entrenched - being that of males and females of near equivalency being paid different amounts.

Otherwise it's unwelcome and uncouth, but not illegal and your equivalency would be wildly exaggerated.

This is not the False Equivalency Zone, and you will find no takers here.

You are taking two very completely different situations to create a false equivalency.

I generally agree, but at the same time I'm not going to create a false equivalency.

Because relying on DNS for equivalency sounds totally wrong for many cases.

The false equivalency you exhibit is either lazy thinking or disingenuity.

I don't exactly see the equivalency between 1800s Colonialism / Slave Trade / Zulu Genocide and Google Internet Balloon projects however.

I froze up a bit in an interview over a DeMorgan's law equivalency question.

[1] essentially ties purity to the equivalency of call-by-name, call-by-need and call-by-value evaluation orders (ignoring divergence and errors).

I went through the H1-B (and GC) process and you can pretty much forget about it if you can't show at least equivalency.

Especially if your goal is to talk about equivalency.

Yes, that transcription approach is familiar; here the result of German-Swedish-Finnish equivalency of "ä" is sometimes not so good.

§ 37.171 - Equivalency Requirement for Demand Responsive Service Operated by Private Entities Not Primarily in the Business of Transporting People" Whoops.

* * * As to what I meant and may have been unclear: the authors are making an implicit equivalency between: • people who will struggle to understand a website • mothers of website makers This is, to me, blatantly sexist — at least until they extend it to "parents of website makers".