Pfhreak

We recycle less than 10% of our plastic. And of that, very little goes back to producing the same products -- plastic is typically degraded when recycled and converted from food packaging down into benches or clothing, both of which will shed microplastics into the environment before being sent to the landfill.

Plastic recycling is not an eternal loop like metal recycling can be. It's almost entirely downcycling when it happens at all.

Large, durable plastic use is less of a concern, if I understand correctly. Plastic use around food (and packaging in general), for instance, has a lifespan of approximately 6 months. Compare to the 13 years for plastics used by the automotive industry.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700782

There's TONS of packaging that could be replaced by other materials -- particularly materials that can non-toxically decompose in the environment in a reasonable time frame.

Not sure why it would?

Hey, someone invented Pinkertons as a service!

I look forward to this being used to violate the rights of minorities, union strikers, women, and the homeless!

Yeah, I understood the analogy just fine, thanks. Obviously the parent was drawing a parallel between the pampered do nothing ants and the Kardashians.

But critique implies an analysis and some thought, not just a pithy one liner.

But that doesn't solve the problem. If the problem is, "East Oregonians feel disconnected from West Oregonians", I don't think there's a way to split Oregon that results in a net equal number of new representatives and simultaneously addresses the "we're too politically divided" concern.

Yes, you could slice Oregon in half horizontally and maintain the same number of reps, but then you'd have two new states with the East feeling divided. If you split it vertically, then you have the problem of uneven representation.

> Why are the Kardashians the one thing in our society that is not allowed to be criticized?

They aren't, and I didn't say that. You can criticize the Kardashians all you want. Saying, effectively, "Kardashians are like these ant parasites, amirite guys?" isn't critique.

> I doubt you'd apply your comment toward your favorite political pet causes.

I think you dramatically underestimate how much I enjoy being critical of things I support, in fact much, much more so than things I oppose. Things I oppose I find easy to not discuss and write off/move past, generally.

> This whole "let people enjoy things" is cynical, usually coming from the types of people who don't let anyone enjoy anything unless it is degenerate and mind-rotting.

Let people enjoy things comes from a space of "We're all from different backgrounds, who are you to be the arbiter of what's fun?" Whether you are a furry or a larper or a reality tv show junkie or a gun nut.... who the fuck am I to tell you that you can't enjoy that? Obviously, there are limits when other people are involved (like, no, it's not an endorsement of enjoying murdering people), but I'm not out here trying to say that only lowest common denominator things are allowed.

Yes, the parent poster understood that, and was asking about the males specifically because they are relatively rare.

Let people enjoy things.

If you don't like the Kardashians, fine. I don't either. But clearly some folks do and are willing to help propel them to fame (or notoriety).

I know your comment is being glib, but it's emblematic of HN crowds saying, "I don't like this thing, therefore this thing is funny/bad." It costs you nothing to post your comment and just let people like the things they like.

The coastal cities would have access to the major international ports. I suspect the states would have to get along or everyone loses.

Because America is balanced on a knife's edge, and the Senate and Electoral college basically runs the show.

If you introduce a new state that leans blue, that's two more blue senators and N more electoral college votes for a blue president. Republicans will staunchly oppose this. And vice versa.

If the senate were proportional to population, and if the electoral college were likewise apportioned via popular vote, then maybe you could be more flexible with state boundaries.

> Oregon will continue to violate more and more American values and American freedoms

Haha, what? If Oregon is doing stuff, it's definitionally an American value and American Freedom, right? Who gets to decide what an "American *" is?

> > 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.

They do realize that Idaho and Oregon have different climates and different precipitation amounts, right? The Western Rockies and Eastern Cascades are different biomes.

> > 5. Thriving Economy: Idaho has less regulation than any other state, low unemployment, and would allow our rural industries to revive and employ us again.

Is there any data that backs this up? This feels like a pipe dream to me that's totally unfounded.

It's not hard at all, any reasonable group of people will say, "what was the price on coinbase (or equivalent) when you sold?"

The linked issue mentions one -- data entry at a medical clinic where new users are being signed up.

"It's better dumped in a landfill" is miles away from "sequesters carbon".

Pumping oil into a landfill wouldn't be sequestering carbon, so I'm not sure why pumping oil, processing it into plastics, shipping it all over, and then dumping it in a landfill would be.

That's a very big if. "If responsibly disposed of" has an approximately zero percent chance of occurring. And even then, some things will get accidentally dropped or discarded.

It's just not a realistic starting point to build an argument around. You have to assume people will improperly dispose of it as an axiom.

Yes. I understand inflation.

I'm pointing out that a $5k return is still income. Compare:

Scenario 1: person stuffs $10k in mattress for 20 years. They have $10k at the start, $10k at the end. $0 taxes.

Scenario 2: Person invests $10k, makes $5k when they sell after twenty years. $10k start, $15k end. Pays capital gains on $5k.

Scenario 3: Person stuffs $10k in mattress, makes $5k in wages on twentieth year. $10k start, $15k end. Pays taxes on $5k.

Scenario 2 and 3 are similar, right? Both lose to inflation. The capital gains, however, have a max of 20% taxes.

That's a pretty low yield. That same investment in an index fund over that period is probably worth ~$40k and that's assuming you have no dividends.

Kind of a weird example to pick. Also, even if your investment lost against inflation, you still made money. Stuff that $10k into a mattress and you'll have $10k after 20 years.

I'm having a hard time parsing your sentence. Do you mean only poor people would want to raise taxes?

100% my read too. The fact that the author doesn't make an effort to identify which taxes is a signal that they aren't really being truthful.

Pedantically, yes. However folks who use it for dieting use it as a tool to restrict calories. There's a reasonable upper limit to the amount someone will eat in one meal, and by delaying their meals they are able to simply reduce the amount they consume in one day.

> The problem started a decade or so ago with Node.

What problem, specifically? People enjoy writing Javascript. It has a ton of fantastic resources online, it is easy to debug and deploy, it's quick to pick up and forgiving of mistakes.

> Too many people only learn JavaScript, become psychologically dependent on it

You sound like Immortan Joe warning people not to become dependent on water in Mad Max. Let people enjoy the language they enjoy developing in.

> they all collectively took it too far outside of a browser.

What does this even mean? What's "too far" even mean? People want to write code, let them?

Not (A and B) seems obvious to me. If something is a good investment vehicle, it's going to be purchased by speculators. If speculators are competing over a finite resource, the price of the resource will rise above the current utility value of that resource. Speculators have more available capital than an ordinary/median person.

Housing is more affordable the lower its price. It's unreasonable to price housing below the cost to manufacture that housing. (I disagree with this assertion, but it's implied in the parent comment.)

Therefore, housing is most affordable when closest to the replacement cost.

If a house will never sell for greater than the replacement cost, then it is no longer a good investment. If speculators can push housing above the minimum cost, it is no longer maximally affordable. Therefore not (A and B).

> $272k per adult or $1044 per month for that family of 4 with 2 adults in it

Something fishy about your math here.

$272k per adult is $544k per family. If you paid it over one year that's $45k per month.

Edit: oh, I see, you are only giving people the interest on the capital and assuming a growth rate of ~2%. Both of which seem quite silly to me, but whatever.

I'm guessing it's a cherry picked statistic that is using covid relief to paint some broader picture that doesn't exist. Of course I'd expect government assistance to increase during the worst pandemic in a generation.

Well, you've recorded the cash transactions in a public ledger, so it may be more enforceable than one thinks.

Well, in your case you'd be able to claim that loss against the taxes you paid from other gains, right? So really, maybe the IRS owes you money. :D

A tax is (a tax for doing bad) for doing well?

You may have a tautology to clean up there, bud.

What you describe is how assets are typically taxed. And as far as I know, this includes currency you purchase and later sell for a profit.

It's called a cost basis.

Unless you are suggesting purchases made with Bitcoin (that aren't converted to fiat currency first) are taxed, which I'm not sure is the case.

This clause came from the era of Al Capone, who famously boasted, "They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money." (Which was true at the time.)

They added this clause and then ended up catching Capone for tax evasion.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/10/17/al-...