283 karma · joined September 21, 2017
The article links ownership to costs. Attributing diminishing ownership as "norm float" needs some justification. I suspect multi-generational norms seen elsewhere are rooted in poverty and a lack of opportunity.
Suppose I told you I am losing weight because I cannot afford food, I don't think you should speculate I chose to go on a diet.
If you desperately need a distraction, PBS shows are less bad. A few moments of pacification may be worth not disturbing the other airline travelers.
Daniel Tiger may be helpful to parents too. Interacting with children is not intuitive. Techniques from PBS shows have helped me. For example, singing to kids about trying food is move effective than a well reasoned monologue.
"The registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation issued for a violation"
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...
or worse, the government runs Intel into the ground while constantly taking more taxes to prop it back up.
Incompetent private companies eventually dissolve. Uncle Sam can siphon your paycheck in perpetuity.
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-no...
Further down the notice cites the scenario: "[...] more than 4,500 merchants that were automatically publishing only 4- or 5-star consumer reviews"
Its not safe to cycle for practical purposes in my city.
The city make gestures like painting a few road shoulders green and nature trails for exercise. This does not get me to work, daycare, the dentist, etc.
Generally in America, bikes are more of a novelty than transportation.
I have been to many city council meetings. Stymieing population growth is an explicit goal. The speakers tend to perceive harms from more people as opposed to pure misanthropes.
e.g. "More people creates more traffic so we should prevent housing to prevent people"
Although, I cannot see their true intents. It is possible the speakers do dislike people, which is not politically popular. Expressing their desire requires making up other tangential causes. Hidden agendas creates engineering confusion. If the goal was truly to manage traffic, an engineer would suggest better bus routes.
After a week, 20 ppm would drift 12 * 10^-6 * 7 * 24 * 60 *60 = 12 seconds.
Your motherboard probably has a cr2032 keeping it powered when unplugged.
Crystals: https://www.digikey.com/en/products/filter/crystals/171?s=N4...
Similar to Hydrogen and Sodium, elements in the first column of the periodic table are highly reactive (flammable) because they readily give away their single electron in the outermost orbital.
Some Lithium battery variants might have marginally safer properties, but they are fundamentally volatile at full charge.
>Medicare should restructure hospice reimbursement to cover more of the hands-on caregiving, thus decreasing the financial burden of dying at home.
The main pitch is somewhat hidden in the middle of the article. Its a tough point to open with, but I think leading with the thesis statement is proper.
Than what? The Economist is UK based too.
The Economist tends to favor the US because the Economist supports liberal democracy and free trade worldwide. The Unites States is the only country who can and does defend those values. Europe cannot arm Ukraine against Putin. Japan cannot dispute China's claims rights to Taiwan or the ocean.
There's nuance to consulting costs. The government GS pay scale poorly accounts for specialized labor. It the government cannot pay to attract talent in a competitive fields, it must instead pay consultants.
C itself is simple compared to other languages. The last time I visited Stack overflow was for a niche IDE setting.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-issues-fifth-emergency-n...
A better example would be specifically corn used for ethanol because driving a car is not essential for survival.
The other two examples seem valid. Replacing part of your meat consumption with corn would reduce the required agricultural land.
Developers can only build after attending dozens of meetings. City council must grant an exception to the NIMBY laws.
Only wealthy developers can afford the process. Various council and board member get kick backs for the exemptions.
Housing is an important example because its the most expensive thing most people purchase. Grift is enabled by individuals electing representatives who oppose construction, not capitalism.
Use your existing dollars to buy non-volatile assets like real estate or gold requires you to pay long term capital gains. Gold mostly keeps a constant value, but the dollar value goes down, and the gold price goes up. That looks like a "profit" and you need to pay 15%, soon to be 20%. Effectively, the effect of inflation decreases by 4/5.
For example. suppose you have $100. Holding it over two years of 2% inflation effectively makes the money worth 96$ = 100/(1.02^2). Instead, if you bought $100 of gold, hold for two years, and sell it for $104, you are taxes on 20% of $4. Your loss is $0.8 instead of $4.
Your need to ask for a raise proportional to inflation, but that puts you in higher tax brackets. Your new dollars over 85k are taxes at 24% instead of 10%. Asking for a raise is very difficult for some people...
There's no need for mental gymnastics of blaming energy. Just one powerful guy says "no" and poof, its illegal. Now laws or logic required.
There was an exception for collector coins and jewelry
Cars are deadly and inefficient. Electric cars are still cars.
To prove,
How many people here would show up tomorrow if their company stopped paying them?
How many people would join a startup for less pay without any stock offers?
I suspect the answer to both will be equal to the number polled.
Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death for young people. Of which, motor vehicle accident is the leading cause. It takes second place after age 25 due to overdoses. Young people have the most life left to live.
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_o...
Zoning laws restrict what builders can build. Subsidies take funding. I find it unpalatable to have a portion of my income taken to solve a problem caused by rules which can be repealed for free.
An extreme example would be subsidizing gold plated homes. Gold plating adds no practical value and makes the house needlessly expensive. Tax dollars should not fund gold plated houses.
Replace the concept of gold platting with suburban zoning.
Walking through someone's yard isn't a good comparison wither because a medium plot of land is maybe 4 thousand square feet and his property is 4 million square feet.
Questionable. Suppose people only need to take those journeys because they live far away from the city or their job. These people only live far away because roads made suburban development convenient. Were it not for the roads, the people would live in denser development and may not need a car for most regular activities live shopping, socializing, or work. The roads induce their own demand.
>Charge for road use
Agreed, but the average Joe with fight you tooth and nail. Suggesting roads and a parking space is not a constitutional right attracts passionate and irrational resistance.
We will consume all convenient oil sooner or later.
Low density is prevalent outside of California. Here is a zoning map of Jacksonville FL: https://imgur.com/K6DbVYj
The yellow is all low density residential. Purple is commercial and grey is industrial.
Bang. In much of America, it is against the law to build dense cities where people are statistically close to work and the grocery store.
Why do we have low density residential zoning in the first place? Preferring a large yard is one thing, but how did it come to be that America legally required houses to have yards?
One liter of bottled water requires 1 liter of water. One liter of almond milk requires 384. It is absurd that you justify almost 400x water consumption because "at least we get almonds".
I live in Florida. The amount of water I need is independent of bottles. If I drink a gallon of water from a pipe or bottle, I take a gallon of water out of the springs. If I drink a gallon of almond milk, I take 400 gallons from somewhere in California.
Your argument against plastic applies to almost all other things in grocery stores. The argument is specifically applied to water because everyone seems to have a personal grudge against Nestle.
Is bottled water wasteful? Yes. Should we dedicate more energy towards 400x wasteful activities in the same grocery store? Only if you want to be taken seriously.