ckinnan

Chariot teams were very politicized in ancient Rome and very much represented people and ideas.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-roc...

Lives on the line? On average, existing cars kill more than 100 people each day on American roads. The current system of human-driving cars has killed one million Americans over the past couple of generations, mostly from human error. To save lives we need to push forward on self-driving tech.

U.S. variable rate mortgages are usually indexed to Libor or U.S. treasury rates.

Did you read the report? The problem is that PROMISED pension benefits have grown, there's no funding problem if the amount of promised benefits grew with the economy or with revenue.

Blog spam, here's the original report:

http://www.wirepoints.com/illinois-state-pensions-overpromis...

It is misleading to fully assign spending outcomes to the sitting president-- Congress has far more control over spending than the White House. Clinton was anti-deficit but he also had the most conservative Congress in modern times after 1994 sending him appropriations bills. Obama had a similar dynamic after 2010. In both cases GOP Congresses imposed hard spending caps-- in fact, in 1994 they even clawed back spending from 1993.

Correct, the owner's insurance policy is the primary coverage when the owner lends their car to a 3rd party. Obviously in the case of a moving violation the driver is at fault and receives the penalty, but damage is still covered by the owner's policy. In the case where the other driver is at fault, that car's owner's insurance is liable.

As autonomy is implemented and refined, and safety improves dramatically, new regulatory and economic models will emerge. This will spark design innovation. No doubt both single rider and shuttle-bus options will emerge, with much lighter builds as crashes decrease.

Imagine if you'd limited Elon Musk's PayPal wealth with such confiscation taxes. We'd literally have no SpaceX or Tesla. Why should society put so much trust that politicians can allocate resources in a fair and economically beneficial manner?

Did you read the article? He's given away everything and the Foundation is disbanding.

Yeah, the demand for parking will collapse, which would bring down the value of parking lots, that's going to be a far bigger trend than space for charging.

I had EC2s running since 2007, eventually some of the underlying hardware fails and you're forced to terminate and move to a new instance.

The vast majority of mainstream stocks PAY dividends-- in fact about 420 of the S&P 500.

Medicaid covers around 80 million people, at roughly $7,000 a year per recipient, which is double what the UK spends per patient.

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/distribution-of...

I definitely would have felt safer knowing there was a drone

The presence of drones will likely encourage people to take more risks in rough surf. The same thing happened with car air bags-- when they were introduced, people with airbags drove more aggressively, negating the safety benefit.

In the 20th century, the political implementation of collectivism involved the deliberate murder-- often through starvation-- of at least 100 million people.

"first responders" is the more common term. Honoring their risk/sacrifice became a cultural priority after so many died in the emergency response on 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_workers_killed_in_th...

There's no credible source for that quote: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/15/bush-chirac-and-the-war-...

There is actually a similar problem in the Northeastern United States. Deer are overpopulated (in my area 6x traditional level) because they have no predators and hunting is restricted. The deer eat all of the hardwood saplings. In many mid-Atlantic forests there are very few 10-20 year old hard wood trees, they don't survive the deer.

Yeah, the partially severed limb needed to be fully cut off for the best interest of the tree. I'm guessing the work crew saw some rot or disease or other damage, and went ahead and coppiced the whole tree.

Ag programs are byzantine and corn is subsidized several ways-- through price floors, crop insurance, the ethanol mandate, and import tariffs on sugar (which created the market for high fructose corn syrup, which is derived from corn). The model has failed in important ways and isn't directly transferrable to fruits and veggies. The biggest thing is that the value of the subsidies is capitalized into land prices-- there actually isn't a subsidy for corn at all, if you are new farmer, because you have to pay for it when you buy or lease land.

Corporations have to pay quarterly estimated taxes.

Which means immediately higher taxes because you get to pay the employer side of payroll taxes, plus no pretax benefits like health care and no vacation or other untaxed benefits.

Property taxes are not related to your personal state of residence, you pay them wherever you own property.

Actually that is a low rate for the 1990s

Developers are just responding to market signals. The underlying problem in the U.S. is that the federal government backstops 98% of flood insurance policies and does not charge the actuarial risk price. This government subsidy gives people incentives to overbuild and underprotect property in flood-prone areas.

Amazon just launched a service to help scan, categorize, and protect data https://aws.amazon.com/macie/

Lots of weird half baked recollections today. The U.S. political system moved effectively on acid rain, Congress (not regulators) passed NO2 legislation by a 401-21 vote that was signed by a Republican president. It created a market for pollution that largely solved the issue and is a legislative model for dealing with other pollutants.

Any evidence for your claim? That's not my recollection of the issue. The Reagan Administration implemented the Montreal Protocol to address ozone depletion. It was immediately ratified by the U.S. Senate by a unanimous vote. It's probably the most successful global environmental agreement in history.

Nope. The Stripe advantage over PayPal is that Stripe operates more like a merchant account, where the buyer sees the seller's name on the credit card statement. PayPal injects itself into the checkout process, Stripe is basically a white label. Stripe also has easier underwriting. I suspect Stripe is taking more business from merchant accounts/gateways than PayPal, because they are different markets.