wat10000

29 ms·

721.
by wat10000 5mo ago
After listening to way too much Rush Limbaugh 30-some years ago, little of what's happening has been surprising, although that doesn't stop it from being distressing all the same.
722.
by wat10000 5mo ago
The listed figure is about 3,500£ per year per person. Seems quite low for what it is. For comparison, the US government spends something like $5,500 per year per person on health care, and doesn't come even remotely close to covering
723.
by wat10000 5mo ago
I know, that's why I want to tax them, to remove their power. Of course, you probably mean to remove their power centers without removing their money. But that doesn't make any sense. Money is power. You can't remove the
724.
by wat10000 5mo ago
> None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing. I sure would, if I was talking about someone who makes more money in a week than most of us will m
725.
by wat10000 5mo ago
Get rid of the employees and the taxes no longer get paid. Get rid of the billionaire and the taxes still get paid. Why do we credit those taxes to the billionaire rather than the employees?
726.
by wat10000 5mo ago
I can't speak for others, but this doesn't match my thinking at all. I want to heavily tax the ultra rich because money is power, and vast inequality in power is undemocratic and just plain dangerous. I don't really care if s
727.
by wat10000 5mo ago
Search "light bulb base types," you'll get a page showing what they all look like, G9 among them. I get that it's useful (and it's amazing it can do this), but it hardly seems enough to justify calling it "so m
728.
by wat10000 5mo ago
I'm fairly allergic to advice in general, but if I were to take some, I'd take it from the happy extremely rich guy over the ridiculous ultra rich guy.
729.
by wat10000 5mo ago
I've been making some good use of this stuff, but identifying light bulbs, really? That wasn't exactly difficult in the Before Times.
730.
by wat10000 5mo ago
Lying is not an inherent part of the job nor is it required by all employers. It is not, in fact, the police's job to lie to me, any more than it's a pilot's job to wear a uniform. Making it illegal for police to lie on the j
731.
by wat10000 5mo ago
There are a ton of ways to do that. For this to be “the answer,” the question must be more constrained than that.
732.
by wat10000 5mo ago
That’s not a question, that’s just a situation.
733.
by wat10000 5mo ago
The answer to what question?
734.
by wat10000 5mo ago
So if I proposed a law banning pilot uniforms, you’d say a reasonable response would be “Are we expecting jailtime for doing their job?”
735.
by wat10000 5mo ago
Literally anything that protects people from the law will protect criminals and terrorists too. Fourth amendment? A terrorist might have a bomb in their trunk that the police aren't allowed to search. Jury trial? A psychopathic murder
736.
by wat10000 5mo ago
It's a different case when the input contains more information than the output. If you put "1+2/2 x 1.1" into a calculator and it spit out a verbatim copy of a New York Times article, does it necessarily contain a repres
737.
by wat10000 5mo ago
Is there a difference?
738.
by wat10000 5mo ago
The gun-type bomb (where a subcritical mass is shot into another subcritical mass) is very simple to build once you have the materials to do it. They didn't think it needed a test since it was pretty obvious that it would work. The imp
739.
by wat10000 5mo ago
How is it an incredible overreaction? It's not like switching password managers is particularly arduous or expensive.
740.
by wat10000 5mo ago
I agree that would be bad. Is that what happens or is it that the employer agrees only to hire workers from the union and that's why you have to join? "Right to work" laws are about that situation; they prohibit agreements be
741.
by wat10000 5mo ago
Does anything prevent a company from negotiating a time-limited contract with a union, other than the company's ability to negotiate?
742.
by wat10000 5mo ago
Involuntarily binding the company to the contract would be bad, I agree. But what's wrong with forcing the other employees to join to keep their jobs? That is fundamentally a requirement on the company, that they only hire people in th
743.
by wat10000 5mo ago
Aren't exclusive contracts pretty common in business? There's a big difference between monopolizing the supply to a single customer, which happens all the time, and monopolizing an entire market.
744.
by wat10000 5mo ago
The discourse around unions is so weird. A bunch of people form an organization so that they can work together to sell stuff. When they're selling widgets, or other people's labor, we call those people "management" and w
745.
by wat10000 5mo ago
It's like saying it's a pilot's job to wear a uniform. The uniform may be required by their employer, but it's not the job. A law banning pilots from wearing uniforms would not result in jail time for doing their job.
746.
by wat10000 5mo ago
The claim was not that it can be part of the job. The claim was “A police officer's job is to lie to you.”
747.
by wat10000 5mo ago
I'm well aware of when they will lie, but it's a choice, not an inherent part of the job.
748.
by wat10000 5mo ago
Merely facing some consequences to his career would be far too weak. This dude knowingly imprisoned somebody for over a month. The minimum consequence should be, say, two days in jail for every day this guy spent locked up. Better would b
749.
by wat10000 5mo ago
How is it their job to lie to me?
750.
by wat10000 5mo ago
For some unfathomable reason, American judges don't wear wigs.

More ›