HN user
Right, but getting fined in this situation means the government is incompetent. They should just tell retailers the "right" thing to do and not fine any retailers that follow the guidelines.
The idea that this is complicated legally is an example of why so many Americans are so frustrated with their government. Common sense should rule the day, not mindless legalism.
Agreed: If I was working with a human interior designer I would still want them to provide me a curated list of options on what decor to buy. Blindly trusting a person seems risky, a robot even more so.
A pregnant Irish woman was caught with explosives in her luggage, apparently given to her by her fiancé: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair
Yes, but a large component of worse health outcomes is due to bias on the part of healthcare workers.
Overweight people frequently have their problems ignored or downplayed, or given treatments for issues that they aren't experiencing, which leads to worse health outcomes.
I'm not denying that being overweight can be bad for one's health, just pointing out that when doctors provide worse treatment to a group of people that group has worse health outcomes and makes obesity more dangerous that it would be in a world without weight stigma.
The "registry" is signing your name on a sheet of paper on a clipboard - less than 1% more work for the pharmacy employee's overall job, approximately 0 new jobs created.
I don't understand the distinction you are making: two couples (4 people) meeting at a restaurant is, to me, equally social as one couple going to another couple's house to eat dinner.
You aren't arguing against what I wrote: an investor currently pays no tax on their own stock going up.
I'm suggesting if an investor in NVIDIA uses their $100 Million in stock that they bought for $10 Million to get a loan they would have to pay capital gains on that $90 Million capital gain. Just like they would have to pay capital gains when they sell the stock. No stock sale has to occur - the investor could pay $18 million in taxes out of their loan.
When we decide to tax things is inherently arbitrary: I'm suggesting that we count "borrowing" against an asset as a taxable event which is a simple and straightforward change that makes buy-borrow-die more equitable: government gets taxes at the same time as the investor gets the benefits.
Death already is a taxable event though?
Not really, nobody goes "ooh, the stock price is up 5% this year, we can hire 5% more employees!"
Most stock wealth isn't doing anything for the company. If the stock price of Apple went down by 90% tomorrow for no reason, the main effect on Apple would be... almost nothing.
The employees who get equity compensation would be mad but they don't use their stock value to fund R&D or expansion or salaries.
Why would you earn a credit?
You created a tax event and paid taxes on it and you got a loan for x% of $100.
If you sell the stock at $80 you'd pay no taxes on the appreciation (-$20). No credits, investing is risky.
Getting a loan against assets is another way of "using" it, so why not make that a taxable event?
Just like now your stock value would not be taxed while it is invested. But now it would be taxed if you use it as collateral for anything. If you don't want to pay capital gains by selling the underlying stock then you can just get a bigger loan and pay the taxes out of that.
There, now you don't have to liquidate but the taxpayers benefit too when the wealth is "used" by the owner.
Calling any of this "radical" is rather dramatic and framing it as "obedience" misses the point.
If someone says "My name is spelled e. e. cummings" then writing it "E. E. Cummings" is weird. It feels either uninformed or a deliberate, though tiny, mark of disrespect.
It would also be weird to spell the Motorola "Razr" phone's name as "Razor" as that's not the spelling Motorola gave it.
It isn't about "obeying" the poet nor the corporation but rather following social norms to spell things as the named person (or the namer of the item) prefers it to be spelled. And if you don't follow this convention then... oh well, most people will probably forget about it seconds after they notice it as they have other things to think about.
Right: most systems with paper ballots are simple enough that the vast majority of the electorate, including those with lower-than-average IQ's (50% of the population), can understand and could participate in if they were inclined.
I have yet to see a digital system that I would trust myself to validate, much less the non-technical majority of the public.
Right, if you are swimming in multiple events then it doesn't necessarily make sense to swim as hard as you can in the early events if that is going to tire you out for the latter events.
If you have a decimal then you should store it as a Decimal type, not a float nor an int. This is why Decimal types exist - the fact that most programming languages don't have a native Decimal type baffles me.
"x is worth more than gold" means the price per unit of weight of x is greater than that of gold.
What are you trying to achieve by arguing that a common turn of phrase doesn't mean what everyone else thinks it means?
Why? That would be expensive and the cars are designed to understand the lights as they are.
The possibility of "character" is always my biggest dread when getting into a taxi or an Uber.
I just want to get from point A to point B without having to make small talk or delicately navigate a political discussion with a stranger. A stranger who both controls the vehicle and, in the case of Uber/Lyft, will be giving me a rating at the end of the ride.
The biggest reason people loose muscle mass as they age is due to lack of use, so a built environment that encourages walking is going to help keep people in shape to walk as they age.
If we truly listen to the pronunciation of small children they often substitute easier sounds for difficult ones for many years. We just expect that from children so it seems normal.
Very true when it comes to antisemitic views: only 1 in 10 Russians would be ok having a Jewish friend.
"In a Levada Center poll, for instance, 45 percent of Russians said they had a positive attitude toward Jews in 2021, up from 22 percent in 2010. Russians said Jews were the minority group they were most comfortable having close to them — but only 11 percent said they’re ready to have a Jewish friend, up from 3 percent in 2010."
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-ukraine-war-f...
Statistically safe maybe, but speaking for Manhattan the streets have plenty of unsavory and seemingly-unsafe people around. I have a close friend who worked at an office a block away from a methadone clinic (in a busy part of midtown) and the clients would be hanging around the neighborhood propositioning people while the police did nothing. And this was before 2020.
The perception of safety is almost as important as safety itself. The visible, chronically homeless population is as visible and challenging for citizens to deal with as ever. Leaving these people to the streets is bad for everyone and definitely makes NYC feel much less safe than it might actually be.
I'm glad they do: the more people drive electric the cleaner the air is that I breathe.
Or what if we trained more nurse practitioners and PAs so we needed fewer doctors (proportional to the population)?
Where do all the trained doctors go though?
If 1 person trains 6, then in a few years you now have 7 trained doctors who could either train 42 more or, if given half the workload, could train 21 more.
If the training doctors are always oversubscribed then there's a deeper problem in the system that's creating this bottleneck.
Tesla is still years behind Waymo: "FSD 12.3 seems superior to Waymo’s technology circa 2018, it’s not as good as Waymo’s technology at the end of 2020"
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/05/on-self-driving-waymo-i...
What does some people not filling out paperwork before moving to another country have to do with how the society treats 5-year-olds?
If a non-native English speaking 5 year old said "I goed to school today" people would say they are native level. (Even though they used the non-word "goed" as the past tense of "to go" instead of "went")
If a non-native English speaking 15 year old said "I goed to school today" people wouldn't say, "wow, they are a native speaker" nor would they say "wow, they are natively speaking like a 5-year-old" - they would say they still needed practice.
That's my point - speaking like a 5 year old as an adult wouldn't be considered native by anyone but a 5 year old. As you get older the standard is higher: speaking like a 10 year old is much harder than speaking like a 5 year old.
So for a 10 year old just learning a new language it may take longer than the 5 year old to get to their age level. That doesn't necessarily mean the 10 year old is worse at learning languages though since they have so much more to learn to be considered "native".
I would actually argue that if a child and an adult spent the same amount of time engaged in language learning and were graded on the same metrics the adult would get farther. I don't think there's a magical cutoff where we suddenly can't learn languages anymore.
Rather, I think it is partly because we grade them on a curve that children are said to be amazing linguists
Children have many other advantages that also help them: * More free time * Fewer internal distractions (Did I lock the door? What am I making for dinner? etc.) * Not being afraid to make mistakes
Right, but the parent comment is comparing children to adults.
Even a native speaking 3.5 year old actually speaks a language very poorly compared to a native speaking adult.