This particular site is definitely strongly right-leaning. However, the vast majority of its claims are based in objective scientific studies and reporting. It's a pretty rare bird, don't see a lot of sites with its style.
778 karma · joined July 8, 2019
Plug in some numbers for yourself with this Obamacare calculator. If you are, for example, a married couple, both 55 years old, you lose many of thousands of dollars of benefits from an additional $1 of income when your income crosses 400% of the poverty line.
To put some real numbers on the table: if this couple made $65800 of income, they get a $1098 per month subsidy. If they made $65900 of income, they get a $0 subsidy.
This would be typified by upgraded goods having higher margins than baseline goods.
The average family income in 1958 was $3300. Adjusting by CPI, that has the same buying power as $36,000 today.
https://census.gov/library/publications/1952/demo/p60-009.ht...
For example, men make up the majority of people with very high (and very low) IQ's. If you randomly sampled the general population, binned to the IQ distribution of tenured professors, what gender ratio would you get?
>Umm, is it? Really? Was electing Donald such a great idea? Well, the media certainly made its deal with the devil.
Considering that Trump got elected in a time where actively shaming his viewpoints was the dominant approach in the mainstream media, it seems like your suggested approach is ineffective.
There are Trumpian viewpoints, and there are Trumpian-adjacent viewpoints that are more centrist and more extreme. The mainstream media lately is whipped into such a frenzy lately that it can't tell the difference. I listened to an NPR correspondent, a supposedly minimally biased source, call Trump a white supremicist two days ago. When the norm is so obviously skewed, right-leaning folks don't have the opportunity to hear meaningful critical discussion of their own wing- and when this is true, more extreme candidates have the opportunity to win.
You're not wrong but you're not making any measurable claims. If you want to understand what complexity is "necessary" you should define necessary a bit better for the purpose of discussion. If necessary means "required for the individual stakeholders in the financial enterprise to achieve their goals" that is a productive starting point. If necessary means "required so people are happy" that is a quagmire.
The strength of the market reaction is contingent upon the strength of his claims.
Most of these interns are going to be self-selected to love Disney. The Disney fans I know are joyful and don't have a lick of cynicism. The "magic of Disney" captures a joyful attitude that was already latent within their personality, but is hard to find elsewhere.
The experience of getting to live and work in a park that non-cynically calls itself the "happiest place on earth", surrounded by peers that are just as joyous as you are, is worth more to them than the pay.
I don't think this is a bad outcome for these interns. For the ones that love it, all the better, and for the ones that end up hating it, they learn when and why to be more skeptical of a culture they don't quite fit into.
Warren Buffett has said (roughly), if you have a city of 300,000 people, you have to expect that some of them will commit crimes, and you need police officers for this reason. You should expect the same thing for a company of 300,000 people.
In general I've found the world of music theory to be difficult to penetrate as an outsider, just gotta take small bites.
"China is bad. Hong Kong should be free."
Removing nuance is fun.
Let's say you run a newspaper that has to report on 50 different stories every day. A large fraction of these stories involve the moral plights of two or more aggrieved parties. Any moral stance you take inevitably skews the perception of the story, when the reader has the responsibility for forming an opinion without it being tilted by anything other than the facts. Sticking to the facts of the story is paramount. Taking a moral stance is a shortcut- an easy way to excite your crowd and get them addicted to more high-adrenaline reporting.
>Equating two sides when they are starkly different is not neutral and reporting the facts.
Sticking to the facts is not the same as equating the two sides. Neutrality in reporting is connoted with sticking to the facts.
>If you truly believe this is the case, please get outside of whatever bubble you are living in and see how other people think.
The practices I am recommending are (part of) an antidote to the failure modes of how people think. Yellow journalism is on an uptick because of social media- the most emotional news stories are the most viral ones. There's a reason that they teach best practices for media objectivity in grade school. To hopefully constrain our emotions enough to make good judgements and decisions about the events we read about.
People that make fun of NYTimes's neutrality seem to prefer a world where the Huffington Post, a slew of shared facebook news reports, and the Drudge Report dominate the news outlets. Is this the world you want?
Let's go back into the story to discuss:
>The two sides no longer seem to recognize each other’s concerns.
The GGP highlighted this quote as being ridiculously neutral. I imagine you would call this "equating the two sides". When I read it in the context of violent protest, I took it to mean that they are not communicating through any other means than violence, i.e. there are not currently productive talks between the two sides.
The recent inversion of the norm of the neutrality of the media is bad. You talk as if it is good. Look at an AP or Reuters report directly from their website if you want to read the news with minimal spin. They keep to the facts, and they don't pitch each story as part of a grand moral battle. Any moral stance the media takes should be seen as a demerit, even if it is one you agree with. The exception being the editorials, or their equivalent.
EDIT: I feel like I've done a disservice to my position. I need to mention that neutrality in media is connoted with sticking to the facts. If you want to do a good job as a reporter, fill your articles with accurate, unembellished facts. Make the dang article 90%+ factual information without hystrionics or fluff. I've seen plenty of yellow journalism lately, but the accusation that excessive neutrality is just fluff is silly when you look at this article or at the corpus of NYTimes's articles.
Big Fat High Wattage Cables are stiff and need a big handle to manhandle them around. Pistol grip handles work well for this.
Other posters here are mentioning ~40 miles of charging in an 18 hour period. That's pretty dang restrictive.
Personally I believe that the amount of human suffering that will be caused by climate change will be small, but I'm unable to really discern whether motivated reasoning lead me to this conclusion. The evidence presented by both sides about the amount of human suffering that will be caused is highly questionable.
Does the iPhone really have 55% market share? I don't believe that for a minute.
2. Signup bonuses are the only aspect of churning that is worth it to most people. If you can manage to spend $3000 on a credit card in 3 months, you can get signup bonuses that are definitely worth your time. $4000 or $5000 levels in 3 months exist as well and are better. Typical signup bonuses can be worth $500 at the $3000 level, representing a 16% discount on everything you buy.
3. You can pay your federal taxes on a credit card for a 2% surcharge, and most state taxes as well for a similar charge. This is best done as estimated quarterly taxes. Minimize your withholding at work to maximize the value of this. You can pay your utility bills ahead of time for free as well.
4. If you don't go for airline miles, the other option is cash back rewards.
5. An easy way to keep track of the cards: every time you apply for a card, take screenshots of the date and bonus criteria from the signup website. Save this in a google drive folder with the date in YYYY-MM-DD as the start of the folder name. Now you can easily track cards by date, and cancel them as needed.
Well now I hope I've made a few people a bit more savvy.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/financial_markets_and_intere...
I don't have data on the quantities of these bonds outstanding, but trillions is almost certain.
There are many other bonds that are still above 0 yield nominal, but which are below 0 real yield due to inflation.
2. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling.
A sudden spike of search traffic corresponding with a sudden influx of advertising spending is likely to trigger red flags for the system. 6 hours of downtime for these google ads did damage her campaign, but Gabbard, or anybody, is not entitled to 100% uptime for a service provided by a corporation, except to the degree that it violates a contract/ TOS.
“Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”
Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly pro-google guy.
My belief and hope is that it is a combination of 1 and 3.
1. Google's automatic account suspension systems were doing exactly what they would do for any other account.
2. There was no intentional discrimination/meddling.
A sudden spike of search traffic corresponding with a sudden influx of advertising spending is likely to trigger red flags for the system. 6 hours of downtime for these google ads did damage her campaign, but Gabbard, or anybody, is not entitled to 100% uptime for a service provided by a corporation, except to the degree that it violates a contract/ TOS.
“Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard said in a statement. “This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”
Her statement quoted above make me like her less, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly pro-google guy.