fallingknife

When you promise to broker peace you are promising only to try since it is obvious that you do not have the agency to guarantee success. There are a million things to hate about Trump's handling of Ukraine and Russia, but this just isn't one of them.

Prior to the civil rights movement it was assumed that by freedom of association, it was beyond the scope of the government to prevent things like segregation by private citizens. e.g. if a business owner did not want to serve black customers, then that is his right. So yes, someone who does not support the government having that power to infringe on freedom of association will not support any government intervention to prevent voluntary segregation.

This is why he distinguishes between the civil rights movement before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was only concerned with preventing government enforced segregation.

A very rational fear for anyone who has any knowledge of history. There aren't any good or bad guys in this fight.

Where are all the other concerned countries stepping in to help since the US has left? Why is the US the only country that is considered responsible for the problems of foreign countries while every other country is given the luxury of focusing only on their domestic affairs?

I also don't have a CS degree and took the bootcamp route, but I have found very much that companies really do only care about what you know. It was difficult to get the first offer, but since then it's not been a problem at all. I have had multiple jobs and offers from startups to FAANG companies and the only reaction that I have ever gotten from telling people I did a bootcamp and switched careers in my early 30s was positive.

The problem is that the speed limit itself has nothing to do with safety. To take your example of Seattle, there are 4 lane main roads with a 25 mph speed limit that in any other city would be 35 to 45. And everybody drives 40-45 on the anyway.

Unfortunately the main effect of this would most likely be a massive increase in the percentage of drivers who are uninsured.

I'm from Atlanta. On 285 the speed limit is 55. Traffic moves at 80.

Difficult only for the average person? I know nobody who is such a genius as to be able to decide what is best for society.

That movie was made almost entirely based off of the story as told by people who were at the time suing Mark Zuckerberg. It is the farthest you can get from fair.

I would not consider anything that only makes people upset anywhere close to the "very bad" category.

Perhaps he failed to cheat, but the text messages that came out make it very clear that he attempted to.

In this case UPS is much more likely to be interested in this than the police. They will go after the employee who did this aggressively. And when UPS makes the report to law enforcement they will be much more likely to listen.

We don't pay them, so really why would they? I don't do work for people who don't pay me either.

Yeah but do they include the spicy ones like Mein Kampf or just the ones that agree with their politics. It's not really a "banned book week" unless you're pissing everybody off.

If that happens this will do nothing for you. You will go through some other company where you can't talk to a human.

This relies entirely on market concentration and doesn't even bother to address the legal cap on premiums enacted in the ACA. I expected it to be trash because it is written by people who have every incentive to try to blame insurance companies and I was correct.

Journalism destroyed itself

I don't really see how that's possible. They are prevented by law from charging more than 25% on top of what they pay out to medical providers. The problem is the providers who are represented by the AMA.

Of course it's not democratic, but what business ever is? There is no recognized right to access the advertising market on terms that you like.

And don't forget the societal scourge of men with long hair

> Being forced to take subjects you have no interest in, and to do well you must think about them deeply.

It requires you to do the bare minimum memorization to pass the test. Deep thinking not included. Also you have 13 years experience f Doing this already by the time you start college.

Yes they teach all that in high school here

I guess the problem is that I just don't trust them. It's a bunch of university administrators and government bureaucrats (two groups I trust on the level of used car dealers) spending other people's money. I think the solution to this is transparency. If these universities want to continue getting tax exempt status and generous overhead allocations out of taxpayer funds, then they should be required to release their budgets to the public. It they are actually spending all that money on reasonable research costs, then fine, but I want to see the receipts.

I can see I've hit a nerve here. But it's ok. I understand that the fact that private research grants contain indirect percentages less than half of the federal rate and yet still the universities not refuse them is a very difficult thing for you to argue against. It's understandable that you would resort to appeals to authority and ad hominems when you can't present a logical argument.

Yes, your anecdote about one person out of 300 million has convinced me that the statistics compiled by the Federal Reserve about the entire population are clearly incorrect.

I do not believe that sharing costs of facilities and equipment is so difficult that research universities can't handle it while every condo association in the US somehow manages to pull it off. I do not believe you that this is aggressively negotiated down by the government because private research grants come with much lower indirect costs percentages.

> Can university administration be trimmed? Can their heads be paid less? Of course. But the idea that that's going to happen is absurd.

Well I guess we just have to pay for endlessly expanding bureaucracy then, because apparently expecting research universities to be somewhat efficient with their resources is "absurd."

> If you want to stop that, you make laws and regulations.

Good idea! Maybe we can limit how much they can spend on overhead. Oh, wait...

If you use a reasonable definition of rich like 150k for individuals then yes it could work. But that's not what people actually mean when they say it.

Why would the people paying for the research not control what it can be spent on? Letting the people who spend the money decide is typically not a good system.

It overproduces credentialed morons. Giving someone a degree doesn't confer talent. And when you insist on an ever increasing percentage of the population attend college, the result is exactly as you would expect.