bandofthehawk

Maybe that has more to do with your specific taste though? For me personally, I think my tastes have changed over time where I think I enjoy a bit more variety/chaos in terms of decoration and environment compared to the sterile greige look that's currently popular.

It's very unlikely. Once you control for the type of car (minivan, sports car, etc) and type of person buying the car (young/old, male/female), red cars get similar amount of tickets to other colors.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/red-handed/

Was his demonstration helpful? Or do you mean that he was only able to do the tasks faster because he was rushing them, or that fast completion of these tasks was not really meaningful to the overall performance of the store?

Was he wrong to oppose the Vietnam war?

> No sensical person is concerned with the interest rate on savings, it is nearly zero and effectively negative

This might have been true for the past ten years or more, it's not true now. You can easily find savings accounts now which offer over 3%, and it's going up as the fed continues to raise rates.

This still might not be the best investment when you consider the high inflation, but it's great for emergency fund type accounts that need low risk, high liquidity.

I think the difference is in who makes the decision about how and when to set limits. Insurance companies' purpose is to maximize profits. A public owned service might be willing to sacrifice some costs for better overall health outcomes.

I think it's just a simple profit motive. If the insurers can minimize the amount of care while also minimizing the risk of getting sued, why wouldn't they do that? The algorithm/rules can be tweaked to minimize costs while protecting themselves from lawsuits when the algorithm "accidentally" drops coverage for someone who still needs it, as described by the examples in the article.

Exactly, this just gives the private insurers deniability when they drop coverage for someone who still needs care. They can't be held liable for someone's sickness or death, because they were just following the algorithm.

> not allowing your medical system to get overwhelmed by individuals that aren't contributing any money into it

So your proposal is that we let the poor die?

Are you looking for references that dense population areas subsidize the less dense areas? Strong towns has lots of examples, here's one: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...

> Suburbs are not inherently unsustainable or terribly designed. Some are, but some cities are too.

I would guess that most suburbs are financially unsustainable in the long term because they pay less in taxes than it costs to maintain their infrastructure. Strong towns talks about this in great detail.

I think part of the problem is that the danger from cars kind of force the bikes onto the sidewalk. If a biker has a choice between possibly getting hit by a car or possibly hitting a pedestrian, the choice is kind of obvious.

The solution is better infrastructure for bikes. Separate bike lanes from cars and pedestrians, slow the cars down, and improve visibility at conflict points.

Maybe take away the right of businesses to fire employees for comments they've made in their personal life?

You're right Houston doesn't call it zoning, but they basically have the same rules. This video sums it up well: https://youtu.be/TaU1UH_3B5k