Neither the north nor the south can really be considered democratic institutions by modern standards - less than half of their population could vote at the time of the civil war (women's suffrage) - and far less than half in the south (millions of slaves). The country as a whole elected Lincoln, and the southern states (via their mostly-undemocratically-elected leaders) rejected that slightly-more-democratically-sourced outcome. The democratically-elected leader and his political party then brought more democracy to the entire country by emancipating the enslaved and subsequently gave them (the men, anyway) the right to vote. Whether or not that was their intention at the outset doesn't change the fact that the north brought more democracy, which the south hated, and continues to hate.
So much for those vaunted democratic institutions you claim to hold so dear.
Probably should focus on implementing strong labor protections and encouraging union participation (which would blunt the effect this sort of weapon has), instead of eliminating them.
Right, I'm not sure there's one unifying theory that you could bundle it under, not sure what the right term is for a general concept rather than a hard testable theory. But that just further proves the need to stop calling it one thing in particular, because it leads the vast majority of people (including scientists!) to think that "dark matter" is some big unifying theory, when there is no such thing as some singular substance called "dark matter".
I mean, until we actually prove that dark matter is "something", we need to stop calling it that. All it is, is some constant that we apply to make sense of the motion of galactic-scale objects. And we use "dark energy" as a constant to explain why the universe keeps apparently accelerating its expanse beyond what we would have predicted given what we know about the universe. There is no reason to believe that these phenomena are caused by some singular thing. These latest development only strengthens that conclusion.
In any case, until we actually are able to test that this is one "thing" rather than a bunch of things we still have no idea about, we should stop calling it "dark <foo>". Because I think that a lot of people are under the impression that there is some discrete substance out there causing this discrepancy, and there really is no reason to believe that's the case.
How is this different than your typical wall street trader in the 80s and 90s? The only thing that's different now is that access to these markets isn't gated behind class and privilege, anyone can participate. Maybe that's the most scary thing of all, not that this is different, but that this is how it's always been and we just told ourselves a beautiful fiction of "hard work" and "grit".
Bats are extremely far down the list of things we have to worry about, when we continue to have millions of infected people who proudly and angrily spew virus-infested air particles uncontrolled into their communities because they think they know better.
It is indeed unlikely, because it's much easier to detect an outbreak in a controlled setting like a lab before it infects a critical mass of the population. Indeed, lab leaks have happened before and were contained before it reached more than a handful of people.
Much more likely that covid was rip-roaring uncontrolled through the Wuhan population well before the first official diagnosis, so it was already unstoppable. The real conspiracy is that China massively fucked up its handling of the outbreak because their government is generally incompetent and they don't want people prying too hard into any of it because it would be highly damaging to its world image for everyone to know just how incompetent they are. The labs have proven to be much better at this than some unelected cabal of autocratic government bureaucrats.
The coronavirus lab is in Wuhan because it's a big city in a region where historically a lot of coronoviruses originate, so it makes sense that they'd be researching them there.
These aren't prices we haven't seen before. Electronics, sure, but there's a pretty good non-general-inflationary explanation for that. This (still) ain't the 70s.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, no matter what the situation. That's called freedom, too. What you are also entitled to is a vote, and you can feel free to vote for politicians who will enact your agenda, which seems to be holding poor people accountable.
But that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not your attitude is actually constructive. You seem to be stuck in the 80s era of Reaganomics/welfare queens thinking, which has since proven to be incredibly ineffectual, destructive, and misery-causing.
It's pretty easy not to judge people for buying stuff with money that they have. It's called freedom, you know?
The root of the problem is with the judger, for thinking that money from the government is somehow less worthy than money from other sources (wages, inheritance, government-subsidized business wages, etc).
It's actually much more effective than expending energy obsessing about how much carbon you're emitting on a daily basis. Use that energy instead to vote/support/campaign for Democrats, because the marginal utility of having more Democrats in power is exponentially more important, given the consequences of not having them in power.
You're missing the point. Humans/citizens generally don't need to change their behavior, the world needs to change how it meets the demands of humans. There may be some environmentalists out there who say we need degrowth, or we all need to live in a commune, but those people are not going to be the ones who deliver the solution, because you're right, no one is going to bother following those people into the abyss, even if they do practice what they preach.
Those people generally aren't the ones trying to shame people into making mostly useless actions that don't move the needle. They know full well that the solution involves change at the highest levels. Individual action isn't solving this. Even a general shift in consumer-led actions isn't solving this. The only thing solving this at this point is coordinated, international action, changing how we produce, which is the only thing that will change how we consume at a level sufficient enough to be meaningful.
Think about the difference between how we individually spend time and effort to sort our recyclables, and how meaningless (and even harmful) that turned out to be, when the real problem was that governments weren't cracking down the unnecessary production of plastics.
Their part to fix the problem would be to make sure they're able to do the maximum to affect things at a macro level. That means not bothering to obsess about individual acts of emitting carbon, or putting finite resources into guilt-mollifying individual carbon offsets. If an environmentalist needs to attend a conference where they can better-influence the movers and shakers of the world, then they should take the most convenient form of transport to get there, not a sailboat.
Whereas if we did not vote for Democrats, we'd have many policies that make things even worse. Remember, Republicans have agency too, and they use it to make everything much, much worse. Voting for Democrats, even if it's just to block Republican virulence, is therefore an undeniable positive act.
You can just stop right there! Either it's okay to cancel, or it isn't. "It's okay to cancel those that I don't like, but not cancel those I do like" is infantile reasoning and not to be taken seriously.
You mean why didn't they go back in time and do it when it could have made a difference? Masks are ubiquitous now, and have been entirely politicized by the GOP. The abject refusal to assign blame to the most malicious administration in this country's history says a lot about many in this community.
Every time someone brings up the GIL and performance, the answer is pretty much always "use a different language for the places you need especially high performance". All this sturm and drang about Python not being performant enough is missing the point. It's not supposed to be the answer to special cases where maximum performance is required! It's a general-purpose language that is built around community and easy readability and elimination of boilerplate, and be good-enough for a vast majority of usecases. Just like any language, there are usecases where it is not appropriate. Clearly, it has succeeded given its significant reach and longevity.
It's because they're trying to give people breaks on what they owe. The more money you make (and the more ways in which you make it), the more exemptions and breaks you tend to be eligible for, so the more complicated your taxes tend to be. A realistic simplified tax code would probably mean you, as a senior engineer, would pay much more in taxes, which would be fine with me! A properly-funded government can be a great boon to society. But you might not feel the same way, so be careful what you wish for.
But the surge in revenue from doubling subscribers would (way) more than cover any costs in infrastructure spending. This would not drive any increase in subscription cost, which is purely governed by the competition and content acquisition costs, paired with whatever magic number the major investors/board decides is an acceptable profit margin.
There's nothing about the way Bitcoin is created (via massive energy draw) that makes it especially useful as an alternative form of currency. It was just there first.
There will always be jobs with offices. There just may be fewer of them, which is a good thing, because it means there are more jobs that allow for flexibility of location, which benefits those who are disadvantaged in where they happen to choose to live.