His wife stood by him as wives were often expected to do back in the day, but that doesn't mean she was a willing participant in a nonmonogamous relationship.
335 karma · joined March 23, 2016
His wife stood by him as wives were often expected to do back in the day, but that doesn't mean she was a willing participant in a nonmonogamous relationship.
Sure
>So I don’t understand why Matt believes that building a few new apartments in some city - a very small move along that spectrum - would do anything other than make local prices go up.
Huh? Other than friends, none of the previously mentioned amenities are provided by apartment buildings.
Adding commercial real estate to a city adds jobs and amenities that make it more desirable, and thus more expensive.
Adding more housing does not.
That said, adding more housing raises the demand for commercial real estate (more available workers and customers), hence the cycle that leads to very dense, very expensive places like Manhattan. Strictly speaking though, adding apartments alone isn't enough to keep that cycle going.
The point of repealing qualified immunity is to let the victims sue as a means of enforcing checks on police.
How does "a major local employer wants the local economy to thrive" lead to more exploitation than usual? If anything, I'd expect a thriving local economy to mean that there's more competition for workers, increasing their bargaining power and reducing the probability/severity of worker exploitation.
People do not prefer sharing a house with roommates to having their own apartment.
Also the idea that people's preferences should be encoded into bans on certain housing types is completely absurd to begin with.
I'd love to see it, but I'm a bit pessimistic about the political viability of a significant revival of civilian nuclear ships.
Killing somebody just because they're running from an outstanding warrant would be a new and terrible policy whether or not a robot was involved.
A pull-up competition is a perfectly valid test if the job/program requires exactly that kind of upper body strength.
Presumably they had a separate GPA, or at least term-specific GPAs, from their second round of community college.
Perhaps this is unnecessarily pedantic, but what you're describing is a "conflict of interest" problem, not an "insider trading" problem. You can have either problem without the other, and depending on how you crack down on insider trading, it could be completely ineffective at solving the conflict of interest problem.
Compared to the impact they can have at their job (positive or negative), this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Obviously I'd prefer if they didn't do it, but I don't see why it needs to be a bigger issue.
Insider trading causes two problems:
* Undermines faith in, and thus reduces efficacy of, financial markets
* Reduces the overall returns for everyone else a bit
While it becomes a problem when rampant throughout the market, I don't think a few hundred members of congress would collectively have much impact here.
I'm also a little wary of the kind of person who's willing to go into politics and isn't in it for the money. While there are a handful of truly dedicated public servants, most people who aren't in it for the money are either extreme ideologues or power hungry narcissists. I'll take a politician who's mildly financially corrupt over someone who wants to abolish either taxes or private property, and way over one who wants to become a dictator.
>the average electric vehicle battery requires around 10 kg of [lithium]. In turn, 5.3 tons of lithium carbonate ore yield one ton of lithium
This would suggest that 53kg of ore would be enough to provide one car's worth of lithium.
While this isn't a complete substitute for regulations that systematically fix issues causes by negative externalities, I'd rather live in a society where a lot of problems are avoided because my fellow citizens generally care about my well being, rather than one in which the government needs to intervene left and right.
Neither of those apply to race in the slightest.
Carbon offsetting is a government program? I thought this was pretty much all the work of private companies, with buyers doing so voluntarily and providers self-regulating (hence the problems). Is that not the case?
Restricting supply like this can be fine if demand doesn't grow, but it can be a huge problem for housing affordability if your local economy is booming.
I don't think I've ever heard of a cyclist getting mad at another cyclist for stopping at a red light. The propensity to violate traffic laws seems to be higher among drivers than cyclists.
I don't really understand this. I keep my helmet clipped to my handlebars, so if I have my bike, I have my helmet. Is it really so much of an inconvenience?
I'm sympathetic to the overall anti-helmet-requirement position, even seemingly trivial concerns like "it messes up my hair" sound legitimate to me. The convenience argument in particular just never made much sense to me though.