ghastmaster

Additionally, the image is I presume, used without permission from the creator.

> Anyone who has no income, and relies on savings, is acutely aware that printing money risks inflation, and that inflation will destroy their savings.

Most whom I talk to think the president causes inflation, seemingly out of thin air. They are not able to articulate how inflation actually happens via money printing. They support the majority of the spending items, but cannot connect the dots.

It was literally unsustainable then as it was in 1933. Unsustainability, now that it is pure fiat, has to be defined in order to answer the title question. The definition of such, may differ from person to person or entity to entity. In my opinion it is unsustainable when the inflation from printing to pay the interest or rate hike recession causes social unrest. We are arguably in the midst of that right now, though very few people realize how their lives are being impacted by the printing of money. Stable means of exchange is the single most important factor in preventing revolution.

The fed is in a bind. Print and inflate or QT/rate hike and recession. They've been putting a thread through the eye of the needle. The eye is getting smaller and the thread bigger everyday. One day they won't be able to sew.

I have only told two people this trick. You have now told considerably more. I am truly hurt.

I have installed the apk directly right now from an old old source. I am going to try the f-droid version again soon and see how it goes.

I have installed them from F-droid with nagging and the thank you installed.

> Then, in 2018, the author decided to develop "Pro" versions of the most popular apps...

That's when I started getting notifications to get the pro version every once and a while, even though I had bought the thank you for $15. It would have been nice to get grandfathered. I was and still am thankful. They are great apps for me.

This is what civil courts are for. Otherwise let the market determine which manufacturers or products are reliable. This is nonsesne.

> Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law...

Law is not this simple. What the layperson understands as "the law" is what is written in statutes. To a lesser extent they understand case law is a thing. Case law is the interpretation of statutes by judges and juries ruling on cases. A judge or jury can "ignore" the law. By ignoring it, that becomes "the law".

"The law" is a matter of statutes, case law, prosecutor's opinion, judge's opinion, and popular opinion. As we age, we learn more about what is acceptable in society based on all these things.

Jury nullification can be a reflection of popular opinion. It is equally as flawed as any other aspect of society and government that forms "the law".

Jury nullification is a legitimate practice in the United States, which is a democratic republic.

There are stupid statutes, case law, and situations that nullification can protect the citizens from a potential overreach of government.

As a native english speaker, I interpret it literally, "On the day no government employees... ...minimum wage becomes a living wage".

I agree with your sentiment, however, there are many cases where the federal government has intervened to regulate employer/employee relationships at great expense to corporations. Why this one particular issue has not seen intervention is still up for debate and not answered in this article.

In this case, the potential employee would be setting the price of their labor and trying to sell that to the employer. While typically the employer does make the offer, it is akin to going to a market and advertising that I(employer) would like to buy tomatoes(labor) for $.50/lb. The seller of tomatoes is still setting the price if they decide to sell.

The article does not answer the question(implied) it poses in the title. There is barely an attempt to answer the question. It is a bait and switch.

> Lonnie Golden, a labor economist at Penn State, said in survey after survey, American workers tend to say that making more money is a higher priority than having access to more paid time off

This is close to answering the question, however, it does not address why there is no national PTO law. It explains why workers do not take time off.

> Beyond that, Golden said, there’s always been an American discomfort with leisure and time off, and a cultural bias to display our commitment to work as a sign of status.

This is closer. As with the first example, this is just explaining why individuals choose not to take time off.

The answer is the USA is reluctant to put mandates on employers that would interfere with free association of entities due to our founding being largely influenced by the idea that individuals should be free to make contracts between others. The federal government is also limited in the constitution to only regulating interstate commerce. There are of course many examples where the federal government has ignored this thanks mostly to Wickard v. Filburn (1948).

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Tragedy of the commons is precisely what I have used to argue that prices will go up because the resources are being depleted. In this case, oil/gas is being over harvested by the individual. However, other energy sources are relatively infinite. Oil/gas happens to be cheap right now, but in the future it will not be. As the price rises, there becomes a greater incentive to seek other sources.

>The free market might over time get us cleaner engines when interests align but in all honestly the biggest factor driving cleaner engines has always been regulation...

One scientist learned that smog was a result of automobile emissions as early as 1948 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arie_Jan_Haagen-Smit). That was 56 years after automobiles were first produced. Shortly thereafter, the Federal government started tackling the issue in 1955 (https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/evolution-clean-a...). Why would companies invest in cleaner emissions if the government was going to make mandates that would throw a wrench in their investments? It has been better for them to wait and see what they have to do. They were never given the chance to self regulate.

Are we talking about pollution or CO2? Pollution from vehicles is largely controlled. It is not perfect by any means. CO2 is not pollution. It is a necessary component of plant growth and animal life.

> Why did they lobby against pollution reduction

For the same reasons I mentioned previously. Arbitrary fees and regulations can stifle the natural advancement. The patent in this case shows that they were working on reducing CO2 emissions which would benefit them in the long run as ICE engines would be cleaner. As such, they would be better competition to future electric competitors. Hence, more oil being purchased for their bottom line.

If they spend money and time lobbying and paying fees, that is money that is not spent on productive activities. Furthermore, it costs consumers more to purchase their product. This cost to consumers restricts their ability to invest in themselves and their future. Little Johnny wants to go to school to study clean nuclear fusion? Too bad, Ma & Pa have been paying more for goods and services for 18 years. Little Johnny will have to flip burgers instead.

>If there is no incentive or motivating market stimulus

Is the depletion of oil and gas reserves not enough incentive? They will not last forever. In the grand scheme of things it is a small amount of time before we have to convert to nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind or start burning trees en masse again. As the resources are depleted, the price will go up due to limited supply. That price increase will spur R&D.

> Hoping the market will solve this problem without imposing reasons for it to do so is basically how we got here in the first place.

Humans inherently seek technological advancements. We have been extracting CO2 from the environment from our very beginnings. Cheap energy allows us to do more research and development to escape the carbon dependency. Fees could potentially incentivize the right person at the right time to develop an escape. Depending on that is as much a hope as I have for free market incentives. We're both hoping here.

>Before 'onerous fees', how many large-scale polluters were taking some of their profits and investing in researching how to reduce CO2?

Here is one example:

>Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company...

An alternative to taxing or fees, is to allow the free market to utilize the capital that would have gone to fees to further advance our understanding and capabilities. The technological advances lost due to onerous fees across industries could be keeping us in a CO2 producing scenario.

Qualified immunity does not protect government employees who break the law. There are laws/rulings that specifically disqualify them from using qualified immunity as a defense. The problem is prosecutors, judges, and juries who allow government employees to commit illegal actions with no consequences. This is furthered by citizens who pay no attention and let these people stay in power.

This really scares me. The wayback machine is a treasure. I don't know what will happen to it if these cases succeed.

>My parents have been using Ubuntu successfully for over a decade now

Add my 87 year old grandmother to that list. Firefox->email, youtube, kroger, banking etc. These days most users just need access to a web browser via their OS.

> They knew that multiplayer deathmatches had made DOOM what it was, and they knew that, long after players had finished Warcraft II‘s single-player campaign, it was multiplayer that kept them going there as well, turning the game into a veritable institution

This is what kept me playing for so long. I eventually played solo trying to find better loot when bnet dried up. There is now an active community on discord and plenty of people playing devilutionx. If you have a hankering for Diablo 1 community nostalia, I have over 700 links to current and archived Diablo 1 fanpages on my website https://mgpat-gm.github.io

Why is this redacted. FDA observations should be published in real time so that end users can make judgements and watchdog groups can evaluate and grade companies, batches, and products.

That would be a better role for most federal agencies. If states want to make mandates that require adherence to some standard, that is more in line with the original constitutional role of states.

I cannot say for certain, but I "feel" that these types of issues crop up quite often and are only publicized when certain corporations do not make the proper lobbying donations to certain people. Limiting the lobbying potential to a state level may prevent my "feeling".

Wolf Richter rips on this article pretty hard:

https://wolfstreet.com/2023/06/12/ive-had-it-with-stupid-stu...

> Park Hotels failed to pay off a $725 million interest-only non-recourse mortgage that matured last November. The mortgage was secured by two run-down mega-hotels in San Francisco, the 1,921-room Hilton San Francisco Union Square and the 1,024-room Parc 55 San Francisco.

> Park Hotels only owns the properties. The hotels themselves are operated by other companies, and when Park Hotel defaults on a mortgage and walks away from the property, it means ownership of the property will change. That’s all it means for the hotel. The operating company remains the same.

> Park Hotels has been a catastrophic nightmare for retail investors. The misdeeds that sank Park Hotels’ shares didn’t happen on the streets of San Francisco – as the company ridiculously alleged – but in the C-suite of Park Hotels and on Wall Street. And its investors and now the holders of the CMBS are getting ripped off.

> She said that in 2016 she asked archivists across the country if they had any copies of the film. She heard back later that year about one museum, the Eastman, which had a decaying copy in a vault.

> The Eastman had listed the film in its extensive online archives but the museum has so many reels that it hadn’t paid attention to “The Oath of the Sword.”

Who considered this film "Lost Forever"? It appears to just have been rare and largely forgotten. It is not listed here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/7,200_Lost_U.S._Silent_Featur...

In the left column, if you click on the hospital name, it will show the history.

I have been doing some digging and unfortunately cannot find data prior to mid 2020 for most areas. This site https://data.statesmanjournal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... has information pertaining to capacity since then, for an incredible amount of hospitals.

Looking at the data for the available time period, I am not able to confirm your statement.