erosenbe0

Radioactive material in the United States largely doesn't move. It is stored in concrete casks on site that sit there even after decommissioning. You can see with binoculars or satellite photo.

Also, same impossible calculations apply to any power tech. Number of people injured installing rooftop solar or wind, poisoned by graphite mining, trucking accidents, aluminum production, and the like.

That's a valid take individually but collectively it become invalid once widespread barter began and institional action bega. I don't see Chase offering Topps and Donruss in 401k plans, let alone Rolex and Omega packs. And criminal actors aren't asking to be paid with an amalgamation of granddaddy grade Colt 1911s and Spanish coins.

This is a good criticism. High wage-earners in the US like a hardworking GP doctor pay the biggest effective tax rates.

Yep, and there is a major difference between a casual ride to pick up a sandwich at 2pm on Sundays compared to the morning hustle jockeying for position in the delivery truck avoidance dystopia--surely gamified somewhere on Steam.

With low birth rates, certainly a lot of people may have large backyard suburbia as the ideal but do not want to deal with single family homes for their small family of 2 or 3. A condo or townhome with green space can be a life with much fewer hassles.

Detached homes, especially the lovely ones with mature trees and gardens, require a lot of work. Things like snow removal, leaf pickup, scrubbing mildew off the siding, tree trimming, concrete repair, roofs, hvac maintenance, cleaning and servicing multiple vehicles, and the list goes on. And of course older homes are booby trapped wrecks of lead, asbestos, cloth-insulated wiring, corroded pipe, and shoddy insulation. Naturally, in many desirable locations old is the only affordable type, too.

In terms of urban detritus, some of the colder US cities might have comparable counterparts in the UK, just with shotspotter and much larger jails.

It's just a mix of climate and policy. In Milwaukee you can see some serious blight but they don't even allow overnight parking on the streets without a permit, let alone overnight pooping.

Medicine is great because once the loans are paid down doctors have plenty of job options to get the right fit.

That being said the system of training is a ridiculous and discriminatory waste of human potential. Eight years of study with giant amount of vacation is just abhorrent. 18 year-olds who want to be doctors need 48 weeks of school per year like a military medic or any normal adult. What a joke college is in the US. And the residencies are flat out nonsensical illegal discrimination. If a woman wants to have a baby every year while she can, there are many types of medicine where there is zero reason to require 24 hour residency shifts, yet they basically coerce it anyway. Similar for a disabled trainee or just anyone whose training need not include such things. Heck, even a trainee with a bit of sleep apnea or a sleep disorder should not be forced to destroy their cardiovascular and mental health unless shift work is a necessary component of training for the respective discipline.

In a high-tax US state like California the top marginal income tax is about 47%. This covers no health care unless you are over 65, disabled, or are below the medicaid threshold, which is low.

There is also a lower rate om capital gains such as stock or real estate, sales (like a VAT), gas tax, vehicle tax, utility tax, phone tax, cable internet tax, etc.

Plus, of course, employers are paying some extra payroll taxes per employee.

This is a good take. Single payer might work in the USA using HMO plans funded by taxes, income/asset linked tiers of coinsurance, tax increases, major efficiency corrections, reduced barriers to entry, and mix of deregulation and regulation to increase competition.

Also, the US healthcare system is the excellent and one of the world's best if :

A) you have good insurance or medicaid/medicare in the right place.

B) you have transport to potentially drive some distance to deal with occasional wait times or to find in-network providers

C) you can navigate the sometimes byzantine billing nightmares that can occur where your coverage is denied on medically necessary or contractually covered care; or your enrollment in a subsidized program is denied, late; or you are indigent, incapacitated or elderly need an advocate to assure you get enrolled in correct coverage.

Pip has a decent solution for lock files:

https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/user_guide/#constraints-files

Right. That's open to some context and interpretation across a continuum: informal, unstructured dealing at a garage sale on one end and billion dollar real-estate on the other.

Sure, agreed, but let's say the buyer doesn't accept on the spot in mere seconds. So no agreement is made on how long the counter is good for. Buyer goes home to check his finances. He comes back an hour later and says, "done deal!"

The seller seems firmly within their rights to say, "Sorry, my counteroffer was good only for 15 minutes."

This might sound silly but market conditions change in minutes and events happen like earthquakes or 9/11. In the absence of an agreed term of expiration I see no reason why a counter is good for any longer than the seller feels like it. Though with written or implied terms it would be totally different (see real estate contract offers for examples).

Am I missing something?

Not quite. Counteroffers expire or may be rescinded. In the absence of written terms it is obvious that a counteroffer expires whenever the seller feels like it.

So all that remains here is whether Dick had a duty to notify the expiration prior to Jump's acceptance.

Edit: if the negotiating process did have written or implied terms that would be different

But human evolution is basically a story where bigger brains coevolved with increased reliance on more diverse and higher quality food sources. Otherwise, for example, we would have much lower requirements for exogenous Vitamin C, like many other mammals.

This line of thinking ends badly for the 6'4" muscular guy [particularly with a dark complexion] when he ends up in a jury trial. Size jokes seem to have a negative impact on all men.

But isn't it okay to make fun of Trump's penchance for the orange makeup appearance? So long as it is firmly in the realm of choice and not hiding a medical skin condition or other immutable characteristic, isn't it fair game?

(To be clear, this question applies to certain kinds of public figures and not the shy kid in the schoolyard)

But there is no reason to believe that 2SD above the mean in the heritable elements of 'intelligence' amounts to much. For all we know, almost everyone is born about the same and there are a few disabled at one tail and a few playing 10 simultaneous games of blindfolded chess at the other.

That is a major oversimplification. Many fractures and disc disease are much more common with increasing stature so there are clear limiting factors in play.

Height and income relationship could be modest or nonexistent if you look at a genetically and socially homogenous population and consider earnings through age 65 or 75. Also, note that as you get up to the retirement age, tall people are more likely to be dead or disabled than short people.

If not mentioned or on the resume, explicitly asking whether a candidate has contributed to OSS or has done side projects outside of work is extremely inappropriate. The answer may be, "No, I attend temple nightly after going to occupational therapy for my disability and taking care of my children." Then you will have to document this for HR because you done gone messed up.

Heartbreaking to be discriminated against as a result of largely immutable characteristics but there are other groups abused with impunity as well. For example, unintelligent people who are not obviously disabled. Or people with speech defects that are not readily considered disabilities. Even people with acne, rosacea, or eczema -- which is a medical issue and protected to some extent.

The US isn't different for 'regular' poor people. Two years of community college to be a nurse and you're good to go with a job in any city.

Except in the US there are enclaves of destitute poverty, generational poverty, extreme levels of incarceration, job prohibitions for low-level convicts (which can be 1/2 the men in some areas), high crime, schools with low graduation rates, weak access to things like dental care, poor transit options for medical care, pollution, insufficient care for the elderly, lack of mental health care, opioid addiction, children with high rates of lead poisoning, etc. Those people have the deck stacked against them.

Plumbers and pipefitters have a union that has plenty of power in current market. No health insurance and they won't work. Plumbing pays more than 80k in major cities. Plumbing contractors have to carry workers comp insurance.

I agree retraction or correction is appropriate here. However, I would argue that correcting mistakes is a routine element of science -- whether due to a copy error or a miscalibrated instrument -- whereas malevolence is not.

Sure, the end result on the consumer's trust in the science is the same regardless of why the deficiency occurred, but the problem is far more tractable if it results from sloppy QA (or equivalently calibration error and calculation issues) rather than malevolence. In the first case the researchers can eat some crow and do better science next time; in the second you have people who flat out don't belong in science.

Odds are not that low. In the 55 years since opening this high school would have had at least 20,000 unique people associated with it.

Expected number of cancer cases would probably be several thousand.

Claims of primary brain cancer derived from social media are probably not too accurate. A proper study is going to discard most as being confused with other cancers. So now you aren't looking at an unimaginable rate.

It is probably a sloppy mistake, ineptness, and poor process controls by a contributing team, not pure malevolence. In a survey paper some people are sloppy and copy/paste source material directly into their file and edit it, or instruct others to do edits with notes. This creates a large risk that the edit never happens or the wrong version is submitted.

Edit: also take into account plenty of these researchers write English as second or third language. Copied text won't necessarily sound as obviously out of place and process becomes even more important.

We don't really want the trains (because of the way the US developed its cities). Let me give an example. In order to add a few more daily routes from Chicago to Milwaukee on Amtrak, a freight train would have to hold on a holding line for several hours in residential areas to let the Amtrak through. The increase in ridership, not just riders shifting their schedules, would have been at most a few hundred.

So in order to get a few hundred cars off the road, Amtrak would have to build a holding track (carbon cost), add more rolling stock to the route, burn more diesel, and a residential neighborhood full of children would have had diesel trains idling for hours a day.

The total economic and environmental value of the program was negative by most measures.

Trains kill lots of people and the noise is excruciating. They also impede other traffic when at grade, and require massively expensive carbon guzzling infrastructure when not at grade. The stations are often designed or located more optimally for getting freight to and from, rather than people.

The bathrooms are less claustrophobic though.

Programming languages are more akin to such things as musical notation, electrical circuits, architectural schematics, and legal writing.

At least that's what a linguist suggested to me when I lamented my inability to learn some foreign languages as well as peers.