seoaeu

24 ms·

241.
by seoaeu 4y ago
I think there has to be substantial if not overwhelming evidence of increased risk before it would be moral to ban employees from using a given piece of safety equipment. And given the long history of companies not caring for the welfare
242.
by seoaeu 4y ago
> If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists. Separated bike infrastructure empirically reduces cyclist fatalities. And it isn’t hard to guess why.
243.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Whereas being hit by a truck can end your life, end if you are wearing a helmet
244.
by seoaeu 4y ago
There’s worlds of difference between crashing your bike versus being hit by a car while riding your bike. Yeah, it’ll hurt either way, but the former is substantially less likely to be fatal
245.
by seoaeu 4y ago
I mean, lots of folks use a simpler model: “never attribute anything to racism because talking about race makes me uncomfortable”
246.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Nah, the raison d'être of the project (like anything cryptocurrency related) is earning the creators tons of money. Scamming a whole bunch of cryptocurrency users by selling them tokens, and then absconding with the assets they’re sup
247.
by seoaeu 4y ago
> Good reminder that executive action isn’t worth the paper it’s written on either way. That doesn’t at all follow from your previous statement that the executive orders of the last three presidents regarding private prisons have in fact
248.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Yeah the tax code generally tries to encourage holding stocks. So if it was just a question of the government getting the tax money now or later, I think most people wouldn’t want this. However, the proposal is mostly to stop a specific tax
249.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Yes, you can keep writing off the loss in year 4, 5, 6, etc. until you’ve earned back $997,500. So another way of looking at it is that you prepaid $250,000 of taxes. Obviously not a desired outcome, but at least a reasonably fair one. Also
250.
by seoaeu 4y ago
That sounds dangerously close to trickle down economics. In any case, your example is far less problematic than the current situation where a rich person could fund their lifestyle off loans against their portfolio while never paying capita
251.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Your “so-called serious people” swipe doesn’t exactly convey that you are making a good faith effort to understand these proposals… Also, there no reason a middle class investor would have to sell all their stock to pay taxes. If the value
252.
by seoaeu 4y ago
The question is asked like it is some sort of gotcha, but there are clear answers for both the general proposals floating around: (a) wealth tax. Every year each household with over $XX million in net worth pays y% of the amount above the t
253.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Your comment is written like a logic puzzle rather than as prose that’s meant to make sense. Well, at least the start of it is, which can be enough to persuade someone to stop reading an move on
254.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Yeah, anyone saying that you shouldn’t think about money when making perhaps the single largest expenditure in your life* probably doesn’t have your best interests in mind. * admittedly, a lot of people buy homes that cost more. Still proba
255.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Presumably you could take the 1800/month and make up the difference with savings? Even with the maternity leave conditions, it is clearly better to be the person making 6000 than 2800. But I still don’t understand your broader point. M
256.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Inverted-T with page up and page down in the two "holes", forming a 2x3 grid of equally sized keys
257.
by seoaeu 4y ago
"there simply is no incentive to progress without being penalized". Perhaps I misunderstood?
258.
by seoaeu 4y ago
You're proposing cutting government support for the poor so that they'll try harder to escape poverty? Since I'm pretty sure there's already plenty of incentives to not living in poverty
259.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Unrelated to the narrow task of file hosting, but entirely related to the missions of those nonprofit organizations. Some of the fees go towards the cost for hosting subsequent iterations of the very conferences the papers were presented at
260.
by seoaeu 4y ago
I could say the same about being wealthy enough not to have to rely on public transportation
261.
by seoaeu 4y ago
In other words, your transportation patterns don’t let you reduce your oil use, so you’re doing your part by paying slightly higher taxes to benefit those who can? That doesn’t seem like a bad thing
262.
by seoaeu 4y ago
That’s a favorite talking point of climate deniers, but even once storage becomes a concern this proposal is only one of many possible options. What I’m pointing out is that this thread doesn’t actually contain any quantitative argument w
263.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Some of them presumably are? Redditors are notorious for not being able to distinguish creative writing exercises from reality. Throw in the various methods of vote manipulation that the less scrupulous marketing folks there are surely usin
264.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Whether we should burn, recycle, or dump plastic into a landfill depends entirely on the relative amount of energy generated and CO2 emitted by those different options. Just because plastic and natural gas both are/come from hydrocarbo
265.
by seoaeu 4y ago
Burning Luna (which can be created out of thin air) and burning USD/Bitcoin are entirely different things.
266.
by seoaeu 4y ago
The even funnier aspect is that that instead of trying to stabilize the token or just liquidating all UST at 30¢ on the dollar, the creators decided to abscond with all the collateral and leave UST holders with nothing
267.
by seoaeu 4y ago
The details of the protocol are just obfuscation. The 10,000 ft view is that people converted USD to tokens so they could earn 20% interest. As the dust settles, we can see the outcome looks exactly like a Ponzi: (1) The folks running the s
268.
by seoaeu 4y ago
You have it backwards. The trillions of tokens were created because people lost trust in it. Specifically, the loss of trust instigated the price drop from $1 to ~98¢. That's what started the collapse. Only afterwards did the "d
269.
by seoaeu 4y ago
>> because you can’t get your money back when you’re scammed. > Thats a feature not a bug. This is a hilarious admission that cryptocurrency is designed for malicious actors. Anyone altruistic would consider lack of recourse for sc
270.
by seoaeu 4y ago
No, what's disingenuous is neglecting to consider how much energy is used by different activities. The average American's gaming, meat consuption, driving, and all other activities combined emit as much CO2 as only about a dozen

More ›