Your link does not back up your claim that heckling is illegal. In none of the cases mentioned in that article is heckling found to be illegal.
4,262 karma · joined August 15, 2013
me at waltonhoops.com
Heckling is not against the law last I checked.
Sure maybe, doesn't sound like something that should be celebrated, more like brainwashing.
> Maybe it's your favorite drink? Maybe it was a special treat on your birthday?
Coke is still around in this scenario no? I know people got upset about the reformulation, and that tracks. But it's not like I can't have a coke on my birthday because it's got a different logo.
One can also think it's silly because... It's silly. The assumption that everyone who doesn't care must not be a customer is incorrect.
> imagine if Coca-Cola replaced their script logo with some generic sans-serif one.
I'm imagining it and find myself indifferent. Why would I have an emotional connection to the Coke logo?
I don't follow, can you explain why?
It's complicated. Heat builds up over time. So for example your standard 15 amp breaker on a 14 gauge wire in the US is rated for 15 amps of intermittent use, but if you draw that continuously without letting the heat dissipate it becomes a fire hazard. IIRC circuits are generally rated for ~80% of their max load for continuous use, so that 15 amp circuit is considered good for 12 continuous. Or in your 10 amp example 8 should be ok.
Your oven and circuit should be sized such that your long cooks aren't a concern, if you look at it's label you'll probably find it has a max draw of well below 50amps, but if you have actual doubts ask a professional.
I don't know that it's that unpopular. I disagree with the 100% fool proof and verifiable claim though. I can think of lots of interesting ways of screwing with it, e.x. manipulating the chain of custody or tampering with the ballots to make errors likely.
Everything is a balance. Paper ballots aren't magically 100% secure, and in person voting comes with trade offs. Ex making it difficult for the military to vote, and making it such a big production for my highly disabled sister that she probably wouldn't bother.
I happen to think the pros aren't worth the cons and that most of the handwringing around mail in ballots and machines are FUD rather than measured concerns. That doesn't mean I disagree that in person isn't "more" secure.
I can help with that: it doesn't. If I buy stock, it doesn't create demand for... Anything. Unless it was stock bought from the company itself it doesn't give the company any more funds to work with. It doesn't help the company produce more, nor does it create demand that would encourage them to do so.
FWIW I do agree that if we give Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk more money, it's not headed straight for an account in the Caymans, but I also don't think the exact destination of said money is core to the point.
> Doesn't the lack of liquidity in an economy cause deflationary behavior?
Which seems to accept the given premise.
But ok, let's look at yours:
> the issue is that the GP's premise ("When super-rich people receive money, it goes mostly to tax havens, removing it from circulation.") is invalid.
Is it? I thought it was well understood at this point that the best place to stimulate the economy was from the bottom, because every dollar put in goes directly back into circulation, creating demand, while the wealthy and middle class will save some portion of it. Certainly I don't think the money in my savings account is doing much to create the kind of demand that would stimulate job growth, and while one might argue that the stocks in my 401k are doing something the idea that it's driving more growth than buying a car is... Dubious.
But if you have data please share.
One would indeed expect removing currency from the economy to be deflationary, but in GPs example we didn't just remove currency, we removed demand too. If less people have money to buy a car, less cars are produced. When you are making 1k instead of 1m cars, you no longer benefit as much from scale and must raise your prices, which only the rich can afford.
Now why might this happen instead of prices dropping to the point the now-poorer people can afford them? Maybe the cost of inputs can't go much lower, or maybe other less-stratified markets are picking up the slack, so demand shifts there. Or maybe the rich have enough money they don't care about the higher prices. Or some combination of all of the above.
Economies are complicated beasts, it's rarely as simple as X leads to Y. Instead you have the whole alphabet pulling in different directions and the forces that win out may be quite unintuitive.
Is it enough to remove the advantage? I can't begin to say. But acting like its as simple as "99th percentile men competing against 99th percentile women" are pretty clearly arguing in bad faith.
So what if someone produces no gametes? Are those sterile from birth neither men nor women?
And there definitely aren't any departments funding themselves by seizing assets from people never even accused of a crime https://www.nlg-npap.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Civil-As...