handmodel

I'm not sure if this premise is true. At the Emmy's last year they won for The Crown and The Queen's Gambit. Were obviously nominated in plenty of other categories.

I generally prefer HBO Max in that if a new show comes out there is a much higher chance it is something I'll like - though Netflix makes so much more it's probably about even in quantity of shows I like.

My guess is making shows is very expensive and a gamble! Plenty of projects that look good on paper get panned. Plenty of shows that are considered "crap" probably get a huge amount of views against their cost. I still think this is a semi-overlooked problem to have such a large brand, but ultimately tough position to be in.

They cannot.

I'm also not exactly sure what you mean by your manpower statement. Say a town wants to build traffic lights and a new intersection. Surely it's easier to collect money and pay an outside firm (which may or may not have local employees) then engineer the road/lights locally?

Same with police. They use tons of tools and systems to both do their job and internally. Obviously raising money is going to be more efficient than each town designing its record management tools from scratch.

State and local government do need to raise money. Unless you want all local agencies to spend no more and no less than what the federal government decides to give them. They cannot issue currency.

I used to have this view. But I think in practice not taxing wealth (property) and taxing contributions to producing things of value (income) is bad. And especially in 2022 with how easy it is to borrow money based on your property not taxing it is especially bad for society.

Look at California. Everyone who bought here 40 years ago is super well off while those who moved more recently and are contributing a lot still can't get stability.

I realize property taxes go to plenty of local government ventures - but presumably the US government (and state government) does quite a bit to protect your property from outside forces and local thieves. It makes sense that the more value in property you have the more you should pay to protect that.

I think about this a lot too but I think it just has to do with the way memories are stored in the brain - not anything to do with time itself.

It's sorta handwavey but I've seen it explained that at age 40 a year represented 2.5% of your life while at age 10 2.5% of your life (especially your post baby life) may only be a few months.

And to put it in terms of some advice I do think time moves differently depending on how much new memories you are taking in. Vacations to me can seem to be very long while weeks where I settled into my normal routine flew by.

I can see it both ways. I think people who follow this stuff closely understand it without even having to click on the article.

But I have noticed an attitude among most non-news junkies of "I don't get why not everything is renewable - it literally is just as easy - must be bribes by oil execs". And I assume most non-news junkies who end up seeing that headline will assume it means California is 100% powered by solar and wind.

I am a 5'6 man. I still think a city is much better as I assume the 5'6 man has standards, too. It's not like finding a partner who is willing to settle with you is difficult at all - it is finding one that you feel meets your level of fitness, intelligence, and social status which is considered high (other than your height). In a rural setting you are going to be very limited but a city definitely has options.

I would say be patient. I think as you grow older it becomes less important. And even if 80% of women have fairly strong height preferences I think a solid 20% have close to no preference or would care but are very short themselves.

This is the report the article cites

https://www.accountable.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-0...

The report is not very well reasoned in my opinion. It appears mostly just to be against inflation in general since the definition of inflation is the price that ordinary consumers pay for goods at ordinary stores. If the article said "general inflation is 8% but wal-mart raised its prices 15% in areas with no competition" I would get that and be mad - but the report doesn't even say the price increase at these stores. It just cites the total increase in profits (without specifying if this is due to more total revenue, high profit margin, or lower costs)

The only exception I can see in the entire report is that Costco rose prices 5% - which actually seems less than inflation.

What options do the companies have:'

- raise prices, which irritates customers, and collect record profits

- keep prices the same, leading to shortages which also irritates customers, and collect mediocre profits

I am very happy about SB9!

Though as a maximalist on this I'm still upset this is the best compromise we can get since the lot of this house is definitely big enough for more than just 2/4 units.

The house I live in is rented which means it actually wouldnt be eligible since the owner must live in the house for 3 years after turning it into a duplex.

Maybe this will incentivize owners of houses like this to sell to people who are willing to divide it in two? I hope so! But not sure.

I live in Los Angeles and am lucky enough to rent on a street that is single family houses. It is illegal to build a duplex here, or a structure above 2 stories, even though each house must be 2500 sqft still.

People who are pro-market forces (such as myself) believe strongly that if you were allowed to build apartment buildings in neighborhoods like this that enough capital absolutely would be raised to raise supply. After all, you could take the current house I rent now and put in two walls for under 50k and start renting it out as a duplex two families but that is currently illegal. Hard to blame the market forces for this.

I'm actually happy they did it only because it will get people (at least the subset of people who follow casually and do care) to acknowledge that foreign buyers are not the root cause once a couple years pass and the data will be apparent.

Looking at the mechanisms alone I think its pretty unlikely that film critics have not shifted over time.

The standard film critic job in the 80s/90s was a local newspaper. That meant your audience was men/women of various ages and political beliefs who happened to live in the same area. If you were a successful critic you had to write something that appealed to all of them. This was actually a vital service that people used to determine if a movie was good.

Now the typical movie critic is online and has an audience which probably has a singular viewpoint. This isn't bad - but makes it unlikely the critics with "everyman" sensibilities would do well. People who consume an above average amount of film reviews will have their views represented more.

Chuck Klosterman (who was once a local newspaper movie reviewer and now writes to a certain type of audience online) has written about this.

I would wager that earbuds are already an item that most people prefer not to buy a used version of...

I do worry that public health has a measurement problem where they only focus on things they can measure/estimate and things that they do cannot estimate they ignore instead of putting in an unscientific guess.

This is what I don't quite get. Perhaps eating octopi seems gratuitous since they are expensive and not integrated into everyday customs/life. But hard to imagine an octopus is on a higher status than a pig or a cow which are fairly close to us evolutionarily.

I'm far from the biggest crypto enthusiast but pretty hard to buy home, purchase car, get business loan etc. without a bank account. Obviously you can still get food and clothes no issue but I think the larger point stands.

It seems besides the point. The vast majority of cons are people without a huge range of skills to choose from.

I'm sure convicted hackers or white collar criminals have trouble finding work that suits their skill level but probably able to do so at a cut/lower level. The one convicted white collar criminal I know is working again.

For me, 95% of the functionality of Airtags would still be there if it only worked with your own apple devices. I have found airtags for finding things when I lose my keys/wallet around the house. I do leave them at a restaurant tying it to my iPhone would still show the last place I had it.

This is very interesting!

Would love to see a similar list but weight by the ratio of men who don't know versus women who don't know aka words that known by 90% of males and 80% of females (or visa versa). This is very interesting but not that surprised that many people don't know boson or servo or checksum or technical words.

I don't think so? I've used temporary email sites to sign up for other sites I didn't want permanent accounts for.

There are also dozens of websites that host regular e-mail, convert movie files, are color pickers etc. It's a relatively basic service that gets used by a large amount of people

I think that's my point.

The lottery itself is not going to have the manpower to check if every winner was or was not childhood best friends with workers at the lottery. Being in the public would be more likely to bring that to light + would scare people off.

The state of NH makes it an option for lottery winners to keep their identity private. I know this decision was praised but to me without full transparency those close to the process will be tempted to pass winning tickets to themselves/family/friends.

I pay for the NY Times Crossword app subscription (at least some months when I travel a lot). I havent paid for news subscription in about a year.

Could see there being a daily free Wordle and then a paid app with a few more variants/archives.

Pretty great price discrimination model - at least in the short/medium run.

If I had ability to gain access to everyone's wallet I'd probably attempt to siphon off a few million dollars a day worth of bitcoin. If people catch on that all is lost after awhile oh well - I've already cashed out significantly.

I really like the "hard" version of Wordle better where you can only guess clues which make sense given the clues. It seems more in the spirit and although there may be 26 ideal starting words it would be very hard to memorize the set list of words that could be the best guesses as a result.

I guess my larger point is if risk of death by fire gets cut in half because of variables other than extra staircases - then the benefit of adding extra staircases gets cut in half while the cost remains the same (or even increases).

FWIW fire deaths have gone down by half since the 70s. Perhaps you could attribute this to fire alarms or better automatic sprinklers but overall this is a very good trend given population trends.

I'm also fairly certain that better fire retardant materials are used now and that's why wooden structures are allowed.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trend-in-US-fire-deaths-...