Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.
--------
Question: That's a common misconception about tenured faculty. It depends on the department, college or university. Some tenured faculty are expected to publish a lot, whereas others are not expected to publish at all. I know of full professors who haven't published in a decade but have earned "honors" and "awards" and pay increases not contingent on publishing. Some are rewarded for other activities, or simply by the reputation they earned many years ago. Sometimes, like in any organization, there is favoritism, nepotism, etc.

The status of tenure is also changing with this new generation of faculty, as universities and colleges no longer have (and most can't financially sustain) as many tenured faculty as they once did. This coincides with the fact that the structure of higher education is also changing as online education is becoming more prominent and campus-based higher education is less necessary for delivering quality research and instruction to a wide audience anywhere.

Answer: No


Question: Wisconsin's ban is a little different, since the Tavern League did later negotiate a 'enclosed smoking room' exemption into the ban meaning if a room had enough windows that could be opened, smoking would be allowed in there. This proposed Alaska smoking ban bill as I understand it at first glance doesn't allow for any exemptions, even including e-cigarette usage inside nor a smoking room exemption. Honestly who cares if some rural dive bars or other businesses want to allow smoking? If a few businesses do and you don't like the fact indoor smoking is permitted, then don't patronize them. Illinois' smoking ban was more restrictive(including casinos and not allowing bars to even have an indoor smoking room for smokers), and a lot of businesses were impacted as a result. Including Harrah's Metropolis Casino in southern Illinois laying off 30 workers, and lots of mom and pop bars closing for good. Good riddance if an Alaska legislative committee chooses to let this foolish bill die.

Answer: No


Question: I understand Greenland is part of the Danish realm.  I lived there (Greenland) for 2 years.  Greenland is solvent.  Alaska is not.  Denmark contributes to the Greenlandic budget to ensure access to their resources.  

You want health and education?  Someone must pay.  In Alaska, no one wants to pay, so health and education suffer.  Denmark "encouraged" Greenlanders to move into the population centers to reduce health and education costs.  Alaska encourages people to settle in the wilderness, off the limited road network, and subsidizing access to modern health and education resources.  

Alaska's welfare model is subsidized by the state, and some cases by the Federal government, at incredible expense to a budget that is no longer capable of supporting it.  Some social programs will have to go, like flying kids to school.

Answer:
No