hexane360

"the state loses out" assumes that the public makes money off the deal. If not, just spend the $15m on programs that actually benefit them.

This actually isn't well backed up by psychology. The large majority of violent crimes aren't premeditated--they're impulses.

>So either the people born in the US are overwhelmingly more likely to "just be scum who belong in prison for some reason"

There's a lot of people who literally believe this, and most of their reasoning boils down to "Norway is all white". Have you ever heard "America is different, X can't work here because America is so diverse"?

Your argument assumes that the only reason you'd ever get a "black glow" is through entry-level Photoshop manipulation. To me it's pretty obviously a layer of grass. Remember that with a long exposure those grasses will rustle, blurring them.

I'm not sure China can be described as "quasi-capitalist". There's very close cooperation between industry and government in a way that's antithetical to capitalism. Sure, at the lower levels it functions as a market economy, but the corporations themselves are heavily influenced if not controlled by the state.

"common sense" and "real-world experience" are frequently euphemisms for "everyone knows that's how it works".

Or they hire them because they went to Harvard as well.

I think it's a fallacy to assume that because ideas that connect people to engineers to economics are rare, people who are capable of it are rare. I think it's much more likely that many people can get lucky with a few great ideas, but overall most ideas are bad.

>How do you think your defense would obtain a copy of anything you said to use in your favor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

Specifically:

>Under the rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, the prosecutor is obligated to provide to the defendant any information that is exculpatory or potentially exculpatory, without any request by the defense. Further discovery is available if initiated by the defendant. For example, a discovery demand might be for production of the names of witnesses, witness statements, information about evidence, a request for opportunity to inspect tangible evidence, and for any reports prepared by expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

Why can't we have both? The response to studies of the nature you suggest is often "maybe women are more sensitive" or "facts don't care about feelings" or "everyone gets harassment".

Point 1 doesn't logically follow from the Miranda rights. In fact, that's the whole point of the adversarial court system: everything you say will be used for and against you, by the defense and the prosecution respectively.

Because you love them and want to express that?

When discussing scattering of particles, "elastic" usually refers to electrostatic slingshots where almost the entire kinetic energy of the particle is conserved. Inelastic, however, refers to a direct collision where there is a significant energy loss of the particle. Obviously the former doesn't happen with neutrons, but I believe it's still a typical convention in particle physics.

Here's one in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19163098

And another: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19162386

>We should have known better but progressive arrogance got the best of us.

This is an interesting take. Are you arguing that we should've known that high speed rail was never going to work? Or that we should've seen the warning signs of a bad plan and not have pushed a bad plan ahead in lieu of a good plan?

I think you misunderstand me (I may have worded my point badly). It's not that the reforms are toxic, or even anything to do with the reforms themselves. It's that the political landscape in California is often toxic when it bleeds over to the country as a whole. I don't mean this in the "California is just too liberal for middle America" sense (as many Californians seem to). I mean "California seems to have a level of corruption that makes successful reform nigh-impossible".

You can see this "toxicity" in, for example, the singular influence California (and Texas on the other side) have on K12 textbooks, and the synergistic relationship between huge California ag businesses and the Bureau of Reclamation.

As a progressive from far away from California, I can't help but be frustrated that a) California seems to be all people talk about when it comes to progressive reforms and that b) California consistently sets such a toxic example when it comes to progressive reforms.

As opposed to non-union media organizations having a direct financial interest in discrediting the idea of unions in the public eye?

I don't think you understand. The wrong comparison is between the 40MP scan and the 80MP scan. The right comparison is between the 80MP scan and the 80MP scan downsampled to 40MP.

It's the difference between making jokes that are edgy and jokes whose sole component is shock value.

I read that too, and also read OP as being sarcastic

Well, magnetite (Fe3O4) is, but you're right that its a silly theory to use to explain poor signal. For one, signal would have to be able to penetrate a decent amount underground in the first place, which it can't.

This is because the strongest advocates of free trade don't treat economics as a useful model, they treat it as doctrine.

It's an excludible good in the economic sense, but the value wasn't created by the private company, but by the public WWW itself. This is classic rent seeking.

Why not buy 100 of them?

How many individuals have actually published more than 100 books?

Not to mention that that 10 million count includes many tribes/societies based around fishing, and an entire civilization based around farming sustainably:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)

"you don't need to grow vast quantities of grain to raise cows, just to increase their biomass enough to feed large quantities of people"

I'm amazed someone can be so hilariously wrong.

~90% of the calories a species takes in get lost going up the food chain. You need to grow ~1000 calories of plants to make 100 calories of beef.

>Not to mention plants are nutrient deficient and as a result people have to eat far more of it

Source? Also, what specific nutrients are you referring to? Where do you think the energy and minerals an animal has come from?

>The most environmentally friendly method for humans would be the "hunter gatherer" diet ( wild vegetation and wild animals ). But we might be too populous for that to work.

Modern agriculture is hands down more efficient. You know this, because you know that it can support more people. By extension, modern agriculture with a small population is more environmentally friendly than "hunter gatherer" with a small population.

>You essentially have to farm one plant to feed livestock for your burger. How many different types of plants have to be planted to produce a single burger?

More variety but far far far less total quantity. And monoculture farming is much more destructive than farming a variety of plants. There's a reason that farmers rotate corn and soy, even when growing animal feed.

I don't really blame them, because I've seen it as part of pretty much every 5g promotional material I've seen.

That will reduce the random error, yes. But there's still the concern of systematic error, which has to be dealt with separately. If you're taking a biased sample to begin with, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the test; the bias will still be there.