phil248

"universally a negative + derogatory"

No it isn't. It's often hilarious, as in the above example. And in that one episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. You wouldn't use it in mixed company, but if you know your audience you can say any number of horribly offensive things.

The negative health impact of smoking tobacco is so massive that it's pretty hard for anything to top it. Could vaping be worse than smoking cigarettes over a 40-year period? Maybe. But it seems unlikely because tobacco is so clearly harmful, and so much of that harm we know comes from combustion.

Many, many sales people would say... sales.

Even if your demand was valid, the first demand should be "stop driving gas-powered cars!" long before you ever get far enough down the list to talk about air travel.

Most of the people I see litter in SF already have zero social credit and don't look like they're trying to earn any.

It varies dramatically. Some people have to endure scorn from their managers and lose pay in order to handle important tasks in their lives. They may end up losing their jobs. Other people come and go as they please, just leaving a polite note for their coworkers about when they'll be back (or not). It's all dependent on the employer and manager and, in some cases, state laws.

What I find confusing is how you imply that "going to the bank" is an OK reason to leave work, but taking a sick pet to the vet is weird? What country do you work in?

It's a good time to remember that the vast majority of people never use Twitter. The media has had a fixation with the platform for as long as I can remember, which has helped it gain an unearned reputation as being relevant.

It's not relevant. It's the trash heap of the internet. I can't understand why anyone would continue to spend time on it when it's become universally known that bots and trolls run the show.

Given the trajectory of most developing economies away from industrial growth and towards service growth, is this really so bad? Wouldn't we expect industrial output to peak and decline over time?

Young people did start voting. In 2018 there was a 16 point jump from 2014. Much higher than the 11 point overall increase.

There is no reasonable justification and I find it nearly impossible not to view this decision as either a petty jab at California and Obama, or some red meat for the base, or both.

In this case, not much. The automakers don't want the rules to change and are extremely unlikely to start retooling factories since this is a temporary situation.

"stretching the limits of current human capacity - but not exceeding them"

That means "feasible".

As for inexpensive, it may be a poor word choice, but the alternative is launching rocket after rocket in to space, which is one of the most expensive things humans do.

I used to be like that about physical keyboards on smartphones, but I gave up that battle years ago. Same with headphone jacks.

All I want now is more than one USB input! That works as headphone jack anyway.

Let's hope it doesn't come to... defenestration!

Given the increasing public backlash to football-related injuries, specifically brain injuries, this is likely a problem that will solve itself over time. There's an increasingly small pool of parents who are willing to let their children play a sport where there's a very slim chance of professional success but a pretty high chance of permanent brain damage.

Sort of, but most bike rental places will charge you a fairly hefty fee (some places I know charge around $200-$300).

With the scooters, you just have to find a different scooter and continue about your business.

That is not how cities work.

Which is an oddly elaborate way of saying that rent increases in California can happen annually.

Luckily for all of us, this law will not create a new class of rent control prisoners/devotees because the allowable increases are too high.

This is simply about spreading out massive rent hikes over the course of a few years instead of a few months. It gives families time to adapt or move. The allowable increases under this law are very high.

It may not seem justified to you, but to a low income family in a rapidly gentrifying area, it means everything.

I'm shocked at the ideological fervor here and the fact that virtually no one seems to have looked at the details of the actual bill. This is nothing like the rent control ordinance in SF that has caused $3000 units to get stuck at $500 rents. That will never happen under this law. The allowable increases are so much higher than "normal" rent control laws that any given unit will catch up to market rates in a matter of years, at most. Whereas the laws we love to hate result in units getting stuck far below market for decades or even generations.

The difference with this law is that a 20% rent hike will take 3-4 years to be implemented instead of 30 or 60 days. That difference, while not enough to allow all families to remain in place, will allow families time to adjust or move within a reasonable time frame.

This law is different. If you want to complain about rent control in SF or NYC or elsewhere, have at it, but know that most of your complaints do not apply to this law.

Most rent control implementations are far too restrictive and create severe market distortions that can last generations. This one, thankfully, is not, and the allowable increases mean units are unlikely to get too far out of whack with market rates.

This program is vastly different than the program you are criticizing, in case you actually care.

...and completing all of those forms flawlessly, as a layperson, lest you open yourself to any number of lawsuits. Just the thought of it makes me nervous. It's why large companies have dedicated staff to dealing with such issues.

True, it can be stored in salt for example, as it currently is in multiple operational concentrated solar plants. Some have the ability to maintain output during the entire night.

"If you make 100k, the state could take 9k a year."

That is absolutely not how income taxes work. If you live in California and earn $100k, your tax liability would be around $6k before any exemptions or deductions.

These things can easily be looked up, FYI.

Not to be pedantic, but websites don't break up marriages. Married people break up marriages.

I think you're overstating the use of "algorithms" in these apps. They just throw people at you that you haven't set up any filters to avoid seeing, and vice versa. The algorithm appears to be "people you didn't explicitly rule out based on a small handful of criteria you provided, and they didn't rule you out too".

Older people need to date too. Maybe that's part of their angle? The existing dating app ecosystem doesn't seem great for older demographics.

It's important to rate poor drivers with low scores because a) you won't be matched with them again and b) you're potentially helping remove them as a driver to the benefit of other riders.

If they want to give you credits as well, so be it.