phil248

Reminds me the ridiculous "no software" campaign by Salesforce.

"Have you ever heard of a banana shortage crisis or a jeans shortage crisis in the US?"

No, but I've heard of gruesome conditions for child laborers in sweatshops and I've heard of banana monoculture that has resulted in disease and threatens extinction of the crop.

We should all push for better and more adaptable regulations that aim to minimize the damages caused by capitalism and enhance its benefits. But regulations as a concept is not the problem, only the implementations.

Some drugs are simply too physically addictive to just release into the 'wild' and let the chips fall where they may. I'll tell you where the chips fall - with huge portions of the country hopelessly addicted to drugs that are extremely difficult to quit.

This isn't weed, which isn't physically addictive, or even alcohol, where addictiveness varies from one person to the next. Opioids are addictive across the board. The best comparison is cigarettes. And look at how many people ended up nicotine addicts when we let those chips fall (40% of American adults in the 60's and 70's).

And unlike cigarettes, opioids can make you feel really, stupendously good.

I agree strongly with legalization of many drugs. But I can't find a way to agree with legalization of the most physically addictive drugs. Those are better handled through strict regulation, ample support and, even though it's a losing battle, some measure to limit supply.

That's one stupendously negative way to look at it. Obviously it varies project to project. In California, where I've worked up close with many old and new projects, the new ones are almost always far better off than the old-school projects in terms of safety, cleanliness, community activity, etc. And they provide a lot of market-rate and middle-income housing in addition to low-income and senior housing.

To be fair, many states stopped building this kind of housing in the 90's. For a few decades now, any affordable housing built in NY or CA or dozens of other states is almost always mixed-income.

Given the amazing things I've seen done with cauliflower in recent years, I'd try that in a heartbeat!

Sure, but "cooking" is technological intervention, so the bar you are setting seems low to the point of being meaningless.

I have a hard time understanding how a proponent of vegetarianism, presuming you are one, could be so dismissive of a technological advancement that will almost certainly lead to reduced meat consumption.

I think the conditions most animals are raised in would be considered gross by virtually any observer who took a close look. Subjective, sure, but the same way that emergency room surgery is only subjectively gross.

Given that a marriage probably can't be considered "successful" until it has lasted several decades, we may be waiting a while for that data!

" There’s a fundamental problem with the concept of authenticity in food..."

Yes, the problem being that I have never heard someone accuse a food of being inauthentic without sounding like they are desperately trying to sound cultured or cool or high status.

What does confiscating an addict's heroin accomplish? As far as I can tell, all you've done is make a desperate addict far more desperate than they were a moment ago. The situation is only made worse.

"Still, it shocks many Americans to see no criminal penalty for using drugs illegally"

It only shocks Boomers. Their only answer to 'crime' was to keep making laws harsher until all the jail cells were full. Then to build more jail cells.

There's no need to have criminal penalties for drug use in the first place. What we want less of isn't drug use, it's the anti-social behaviors and health issues that often stem from drug use. Look at the other comments here - no one is upset with the mere ingestion of substances, they are complaining about the behaviors they see on the streets. Behaviors that impact the rest of use negatively. And we all know that a lot of that behavior has nothing to do with drug use in the first place. But it's a lot harder to deal with the behavior issue because then you're dealing with things like mental health issues and large-scale economic issues, on top of drug abuse.

It's so much easier to just use drugs as a scapegoat and start locking people up. Like the Boomers did! But we know that doing so is monumentally stupid and ineffective so we need a different way. Props to Seattle for trying a different way, but just as we've seen here in SF, these half-assed measures do as much to encourage anti-social behavior as they do to mitigate it. I think these West Coast cities being besieged by the nice-weather homelessness epidemic (and associated drug use) are going to have to come up with something a little tougher than what they've found the political will for so far. But we also have to acknowledge that we can't, won't and never should return to the idiotic War on Drugs.

A friend may work with you to negotiate terms, even at their own expense. A rival may use it against you in pursuit of their own benefit.

The comment you are replying to explicitly mentioned a "hostile state government", none of the ax-grindy stuff you're bringing up.

The contemporary homeless problem is vast, growing and almost exclusively along the West coast where climate permits year-round outdoor living.

China.

"Although the U.S. will remain a world leader in the number of millionaires, reaching as many as 20.5 million over the next five years, Credit Suisse forecasts that China will mint new seven-figure fortunes at more than three times the rate over the same period."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-18/u-s-to-re...

All of Europe?

"So unless you use your reusable bags for years and years..."

That is literally the exact point of reusable bags. The hint is in the name.

Where are you finding these bizarre "climate change people" who are giving you stupid answers to your legitimate question?

For what? My answer was always for the camera! But now I have a 2-year-old phone with a pretty great camera and I'm not sure I need a slightly better one for $1000. All I need is a new battery.

The trend towards better energy efficiency has all but stalled increasing energy use per capita in developed nations. And effective efforts at water conservation show that it is possible to pull back consumption in some cases, even if the natural trend is increased consumption.

This reminds me of when I was a little kid, maybe 2nd grade, and our class took a field trip to the police station. We all had our fingerprints taken. At the time, it just seemed like a fun activity to show us a little bit about how police work is done.

Credit interest rates are low for those who have access and the ability to carefully utilize credit. Balance transfer and introductory offers are as low as they've ever been and you can get away with paying 4% interest annually, occasionally even 3%. That's competitive with the best mortgage rates!

But "Standard APRs" are crazy high at around 14-18%. I have never understood why credit rates are so high compared to literally any other type of borrowing. I also don't understand how standard rates are sky high while promotional rates are near the rock bottom.

It's baffling. But it's helped me manage big sums of debts during a couple of professional transitions I've gone through over the years. Without those 3-5% balance transfers I would still be deeply in debt today.

You just expelled every family with a mortgage or a car payment or a student loan from the middle class. You also radically redefined the concept of "middle".

A household must first have the disposable income to utilize those types of cards in order to get the rewards, which makes your plan a complete non-starter for millions of Americans. Not to mention the required level of organization and financial savvy required to not let that type of credit card wheeling and dealing bite you in the ass.

That may miss the point slightly. These are people who are on the receiving end of scorn, and their decisions to dive deeper into fringe communities only opens them up to further scorn! The very opposite of the issue you are describing, which is a situation in which people conform en masse in order to avoid scorn.

"when feminists demanded that every man accused of rape be punished"

Where did you get this idea? That sounds like precisely the type of exaggerated nonsense that fuels things like the Men's Rights movement in the first place.

It can't always just be about being nice, unfortunately. Parents who choose not to vaccinate their children could get us all killed. It's a serious threat.

If being nice turns out to be the best strategy for curbing this movement, then I am all for it. If screaming in their faces about it turns out to be more effective, then we have to do that.

I would love for everyone to be able to "rejoin society" but at a certain point we also have to defend society against those who reject it in harmful ways. Not every illogical cult-like community is as harmless as flat-Earthers.

The article is not about judging a belief right or wrong on any scientific basis, it's about the phenomenon of people sidelining logic in exchange for inclusion.