Retra

You can't dismiss it all as entitlement. Imagine that you have a gym membership and someone is offering a service to life your weights for you for a fee. Do you have a right not not lift weights without paying this fee? Of course you do.

Some of these things that people want to charge fees for are things that you can participate in for free naturally, so long as nobody is gate-keeping you. So it's very hard to justify spending money on them... particularly if you consider them bad for you, (like, say, binging on Netflix.)

If you actually want to preserve something, it is valuable to have production of both digital and hard copies.

Poor people are poor. They don't have money to afford things. That's what it means to be poor, and that's who we're talking about when we're talking about poor people.

So it is a matter of definition that poor people cannot afford to decrease their carbon footprint. I've said nothing to compare poor people to affluent, or made any argument dependent upon demographics whatsoever. (In fact, I've been arging that the only thing safe to assume about poor people is that they are poor.) And poor people cannot afford new cars and homes.

Given this, they will not be getting new cars and homes unless someone else pays for them. If you give them a tax credit and then immediately charge them for having inefficient homes/cars, then you haven't changed anything. They still can't afford new cars or homes, because they are still poor. Certainly they will not spend their <$5000 on highly efficient cars and homes.. both because this is not enough money for such things, and because they have more pressing needs to spend that money on.

The only way a tax policy will not be regressive is if you give more money to poor people than to rich people. Giving people discounts for taking specific actions does not achieve this in any way, because rich people always have more options, more easily taken, than poor people.

No, I'm questioning the validity of answering the title question by consulting a dictionary. That's not how one should go about answering technical questions, even if we find it works sometimes. (The proper way to address the question would also allow you to recognize when a dictionary was wrong.)

Dictionaries don't actually tell you what a word means, they give examples of what it may mean from common usage.

Couldn't you just randomize result ordering?

The dictionary is not a reliable place to look up technical terms. (Actually, it's not a reliable place to look up most anything.)

I'm pretty sure the writers of Office Space have gone on record saying "TPS report" is a meaningless term used simply to evoke a sense of wasteful bureaucratic nonsense.

Arguably, it is the best option if you have enough security through insurance; put all your extra cash into some kind of investment.

The question has been answered over and over again. People asking this question don't want answers, they want a mystery to be in awe of.

If the gold is mixed or chemically bonded, you are delivering rock, and there's plenty of gold in the rock beneath your feet, it is just not worth the cost to extract. Surely requiring a high-risk rocket delivery system makes it less feasible... perhaps so much that mining even a pure-gold asteroid would not pay dividends.

Consenting to eating fast food is not the same as consenting to the second-order effects which you are unaware. That's not how consent works.

The APA considers them the same thing.

They're just as useless on reddit, no need to be smug about your choice of social media platform.

No, Taxes are not voluntary.

They may be a sucker, but there is still value in warning people and/or litigating to recover losses. We afford people the ability to make mistakes so that we can effectively learn from them, not simply to punish people for being imperfect.

Do you think people should up-vote a comment simply because it repeats a slogan?

>Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle.

They will? It sounded like people with less efficient vehicles/heating would get smaller tax credits, not larger. So why would they get a big tax credit? It seems to me that the people getting a big tax credit would be those who have no children, live in warm climates, and have modern high-efficiency homes and vehicles. Not sure why anyone would think that includes poor people...

>Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions.

The argument that I am making is that knowing a person is 'poor' is not sufficient to predict their emissions or amenities, and extrapolating the lifestyle of one poor straw person onto all of them is stupid.

>If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs.

Lol. Maybe facts are actually important here.

I think if you can properly do a fully 3D circuit, you will probably also free up a lot of space to interleave heat pipes within.

Indeed; I'm an extremely introverted person, but that's only because people don't actually want to talk business 100% of the time. If that's what we're doing, I am very much extroverted.

A couple of nice ropes aren't a net, not matter how much you spend on them.

What is a U$S?

They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation.

When I went to middle school, we went to an old, collapsing building that was falling apart. Students (including myself) acted terribly. The very next year, we went to a brand new school. Suddenly everybody acted in a much more civilized manner.

Have you never been influenced by your environment? Or are you just not seeing how it influences you?

They also used a lot of that money to develop a 'premium' aspirational product.

I think their point is that, if a prisoner cannot be trusted to know things, then people who know things cannot reasonably be made into prisoners. So either you can't put a programmer in prison or you should allow prisoners to know how to program. It doesn't make sense to have it both ways.

It costs a lot to build a new home or refurbish an unmaintained one. So if you're saving someone those costs, you are generating value for them.

Arguably, that advantages companies that can hack that metric -- as anything they do to survive (politics) is treated as a reverse proxy for the value they bring to the market. This is why "too big to fail" and "job creator" became mantras.

Hmm. From my perspective, I've never seen a post like this that didn't refer to an article I'm already aware of. Which would tell me if you like this kind of thing, you could probably just spend more time on Wikipedia instead. It certainly wouldn't be very useful for someone like me to spam seemingly-random Wikipedia articles here.

The only technology needed for this to happen was a common understanding of language. The only people you can't trade with are those you can't communicate with. And cities can issue their own currency; they just can't convince anybody to use it.

I would argue that the trade system is far less restrictive because you can easily trade globally rather than only locally. You also can't get away with pillaging/defrauding your neighbors and calling it 'trade' anymore.

You should use 'tupple' when referring to odd-length tuples, and 'toople' when referring to even-length tuples. That is obviously the only sane compromise.