kelipso

34 ms·

751.
by kelipso 2y ago
Sure, you still have people making a million dollars pay less in percentage income tax than people making $200k.
752.
by kelipso 2y ago
Above a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year or so, the percentage starts going down because the income comes from stocks etc.
753.
by kelipso 2y ago
Well more typical would be something like the tribe that survives into the future has always removed women's ability to not get pregnant while the other tribe dies off. I guess there are two types of social evolution, or evolution in g
754.
by kelipso 2y ago
More likely social evolution will take care of it long before biological evolution. Muslims have fertility rate of 3.1, for example.
755.
by kelipso 2y ago
This is an important point that's usually under discussed. From the 70s onwards, you had multiple governments with anti-natalist policies from Malthusian fears. You had China with the one child policy for urban dwellers, in India max t
756.
by kelipso 2y ago
Harris had proposed policies? That's news to me... Only think I remember is abortion abortion abortion.
757.
by kelipso 2y ago
Yep, the pure delusional thinking required to seriously run for the presidency when they don't have a single elected federal position anywhere. It's beyond absurd.
758.
by kelipso 2y ago
There is a theory that urban living and culture results in lower fertility, and Japan is very urban. It's happening everywhere, so probably not something easily fixable without some kind of revolutionary changes.
759.
by kelipso 2y ago
I was talking about the US House and UK Parliament, neither of which use ranked choice voting.
760.
by kelipso 2y ago
No...you get ostracized or cancelled in many social circles for indicating that you might support Trump or Republican policies. Even mild ostracization would make people hesitate to voice their opinions, never mind the level it is currently
761.
by kelipso 2y ago
We really should fund an anthropological study in the people who overreact to every little thing Trump says. I'm sure there is an entire media niche to go along with these overreactions too. I would read that.
762.
by kelipso 2y ago
The House of Representatives in the US gets voted in the exact same way that Parliament in the UK gets voted. Yet there isn't a single third party seat in the House. The problem is something non-electoral, like the third parties are no
763.
by kelipso 2y ago
You only have to huff it for a few seconds, and then turn off the heat. The symptoms are what shows up hours later.
764.
by kelipso 2y ago
The hucksters would be over represented in the media for obvious reasons, and if you are not an academic, then you would primarily be exposed to academics via the media. Hundreds of thousands of academics doing great work, you only hear fro
765.
by kelipso 2y ago
If you are using teflon pans, then metal spatulas are probably worse for you. But you should not be using teflon pans on the first place! Also wood spatulas exist as a very good replacement for plastic spatulas for teflon pans anyway.
766.
by kelipso 2y ago
Also the vaporization of teflon is probably not a step function but a curve, and they set the safety range at some threshold. So in all likelihood you are inhaling who knows what at even the safe ranges.
767.
by kelipso 2y ago
There are still people who use plastic electric kettles. It's crazy out there.
768.
by kelipso 2y ago
Seriously lol, the effort vs risk ratio is insanely in favor of getting rid getting rid of plastic spatulas. Though, it should be pretty obvious even before this study that plastic, heat, and ingesting the result do not go together.
769.
by kelipso 2y ago
There is a lot of space left till the high standards of peer review. Some would call what they are doing spreading misinformation lol.
770.
by kelipso 2y ago
Have to push back on this. When you are learning a subject, you learn a lot of surprising things. But you learn enough that you have a good model in your head and a good intuition, then things that are surprising to you remain improbable.
771.
by kelipso 2y ago
This is a reductive and simplistic viewpoint. You are basically looking at a dictionary definition and trying to argue from that. You are not in 8th grade anymore and you are not talking to people who have just learned the definition of the
772.
by kelipso 2y ago
Generally speaking, decreasing inflammation in your body. Can google how to reduce inflammation.
773.
by kelipso 2y ago
As opposed to you encouraging naivite among the general population about bioengineered products? We do need a good amount of opposition to this incredibly naive viewpoint that so many people like you have of accepting whatever nonsense some
774.
by kelipso 2y ago
I feel like that's an impression caused by the current political media environment but it's not reality. Voter turnout is less than 50% of voting age population in the US and a significant portion of the voters are independents. S
775.
by kelipso 2y ago
You are thinking of a completely different situation. No one is thinking of some real estate guy who wants the dems or republicans to win as their cult leader when seeing those ads.
776.
by kelipso 2y ago
Your argument is something like if it doesn't work 100% perfectly, then don't try it at all. No need to go whole hog, there is a perfectly fine list of banned chemicals published by the EU right next door. We should start with tha
777.
by kelipso 2y ago
I skimmed all of that but I gather you are saying don't talk about food production unless you are an expert or you want to be pedantic or some bullshit like that. Everyone eats food, everyone can influence food production in one way or
778.
by kelipso 2y ago
Of course it means added chemicals. You cannot be this pedantic and still have a normal conversation. Well...you can but it's very annoying.
779.
by kelipso 2y ago
A statement that does not say anything. Don't even know why you would bother posting this.
780.
by kelipso 2y ago
It's all of those things. Yes the list is nearly endless and by default they all should be considered harmful to humans. Also, there is no need to stop using the word just because it can be used in arguments to make unfalsifiable claim

More ›