refurb

Californians were seeing their property taxes increase by thousands of dollars each year.

No narrative spread needed. Voters could figure it out on their own

Was it your intention to reply to a point I didn't make or was it your lack of understanding that got us here?

> You really find it hard to believe that profit making companies that engineer food would engineer food for profit?

That's not what I said is it?

I said "I said I find it hard to believe food scientists are devising addictive food".

Clearly they are trying to make their food taste food (LOL, do you want them to make it taste bad?).

There doesn't have to be any conspiratorial evil food scientists to get where we are.

Most of the “chemicals” in so-called ultra-processed food aren’t added so customers overeat, they’re added to improve things like shelf-life or product quality (modified starch thickeners).

I’d find it hard to believe there are evil food scientists in big food companies who are nefariously designing food for overeating.

What is more likely is they are creating food that taste good, which shouldn’t surprise anyone. Now if the claim is they work towards this goal without much concern about things like sugar content or glycemic index, I could believe that.

But at the same time nobody thinks eating a whole bag of five servings of Doritos is a healthy food choice. If you’re designing good tasting food and assuming people will eat one serving as a part of a healthy diet, then no nefarious goals are required.

It wasn't that at all. Californians were protesting the high taxes in CA. Prop 13 (which included commercial building tax relief) was voted in by 2/3s.

It had nothing to do with Reagan or Jerry Brown. They were just responding to what voters wanted.

The executive has been kept in check. How many of Trump EOs have been overturned?

If the Constitution is violated, then sue in court (as has been done). If the court agrees with the EO, then they don’t think the Constitution is violated.

It’s not unconstitutional because you don’t like the outcome

I have educated myself and having agencies who make their own independent decision about implementation would be less democratic than one under the control of those elected by the people.

1. The President has ultimate authority over the executive and how money is spent. And the President is not forced to spend money on “fraud, waste and abuse”. That’s in the Constitution and legal code.

2. The President has authority over placing judges, as per the Constitution. Every President puts judges they want in, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

3. See point #1

You seem to think the system failed because you don’t understand the powers the Executive has

You’re using “whataboutism” wrong. Take a look at the definition as a refresh.

And the hyperbole doesn’t help. Federal law enforcement is not “kidnapping” anyone, they are detaining them as is their power under immigration laws.

And if they didn’t get doxxed they wouldn’t need masks.

It’s fine if you want open borders, but your hyperbole makes it hard to take your arguments seriously.

The system has not failed just because someone you dislike get elected.

That’s the part about having a mature attitude towards democracy.

So unelected people determine how the government is run? How is that democratic?

Seems like European would benefit more from an inherited wealth tax than an entrepreneurial wealth tax.

Europe could benefit a lot from breaking the stranglehold of old money.

I agree, no scam here.

When I look at an ingredients labels I assume it’s listed by order of quantity, but it tells you nothing about the total amount.

You could have two ingredients listed but you don’t know if it’s 99% first ingredient, 1% second or 50.1% first and 49.9% second.

That’s why you look at the nutritional label

What do you mean “shell companies”? Most Delaware corporations don’t hide their identities.

And yes, the legal process is advantageous in DE because the courts have a massive body of prior law. Decisions are made quickly. It doesn’t mean the courts routinely rule for corporations.

You’re falling for the fallacy of “if I can’t see it must not be happening”.

Not to mention if it were made public, how could it be done without exposing the technology?

“US govt sees massive methane emissions”

“How?”

“Uhh, satellites.”

“Which ones?”

The people running the government are the same ones running it 4 years ago. It’s only a handful at the very top that change.

Tartrizine is not banned in the EU. It's still used as a food addative.

https://ec.europa.eu/food/food-feed-portal/screen/food-addit...

Yeah I noticed the author is replying to a lot of questions except the question of what happened to the shares that were exercised

It took me a while to figure out what happened, but this is my understanding.

1. OP was granted 25,000 options.

2. OP was told by Nvidia their options had vested and they need to exercise. OP said ok, I’ll exercise.

3. Nvidia made an error in stating the number of options (although the paperwork had the correct number), so only a portion were exercised.

4. The remaining options expired as they were not exercised.

So the legal argument is that Nvidia’s error in stating the number of options resulted in OP’s loss. However lawyers have told OP the statue of limitation on such a civil suit have passed thus no point in pursuing it.

Is that it?

This is my question. The post states “I received a call that all options had vested so I need to exercise them, so I did”.

Ok? So the author should have those shares to his name?

That jumped out at me too. It’s hilarious to see that response so often when AI makes a mistake

What EU regulation related to crop growth are you most interested in Canada adopting?

I mean the best way to measure QOL is to see which countries people want to migrate to. The hurdle to do so is high for most people, so they pay a significant cost to get their preference.

If you adjust for population size and limit just to high income countries, the US comes out on top.

"Dammit why don't the voters realize how much better their lives are!!! Must be xenophobia then"

I get that people always want a simple answer and vilifying your political opponents feeds the ego.

Clearly Europeans don't feel like things are better than a few decades ago. Any politicians who ignores that or blames something like xenophobia has blinders on.

I've lived in Germany and all the problems are listed are real. Pretending otherwise is silly

Different stroke for different folks but looking at immigration flows between countries on a per capita basis, average preferences are clear

Tell me you’ve never lived in Germany without telling me you’ve never lived in Germany.

I’m not saying it’s terrible but to pretend it doesn’t have problems is pure fantasy

That's the risk you run immigrating to another country.

I immigrated to another country and I went in eyes wide open knowing that at any point I might have to pack up and head home. In fact, it became far harder to immigrate only a few years after I did. Likelihood is that if I hadn't come when I did I never would have been able to.

It took 10 years to finally become a citizen, but I did so the first day it was an option (yes, I counted down the days and sent in the application on day 1), because I knew it was the only way I could safely assume I'd never be forced to leave.

Clean living spaces? Have you lived in Germany? How about petty crime? Government bureaucracy? Employment opportunities? Cost of housing?

Have you been to Mississippi? Have you seen the middle class suburbs?

Most gun crime is limited to a small geographic area either the rest have no having low gun crime.

Have you lived in Mississippi? How about Belgium?

Or are you basing that on what you see on social media?