xyzzyz

50 ms·

391.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
> IMO the government is responsible for more than 25% of the vast majority of people's savings OK, how about this: I pay zero taxes in my lifetime, and then government can take 25% of the estate after I die. What do you think of tha
392.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
This is not extraction. If they pay wages, this is profit sharing . At best you can argue that they should share more with locals.
393.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
No API accepts input in UTF-32. Nobody uses this on the internet.
394.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
They are not bleak, it’s just you are responding to a narrative, not facts.
395.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
> Not really sure what you're referring to and this is not a useful comparison anyway, obviously many many aspects of the US food system and economy have changed in 100 years. I don't really know how to respond to this. It is e
396.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
> Well the driving part doesn't matter, the thing we care about is how hard it is for someone to get to a place with affordable healthy food, however they get there. Can’t be much harder than it was 100 years ago, when everyone was
397.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
Are these people more or less obese than the ones who have easy access to grocery store? You are suggesting that this is a major driver of obesity, so you must be basing this on some data, no? Also, that link doesn’t say whether this is 45
398.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
I seriously doubt that in Alabama there are many people who don’t have a grocery store within an hour drive. Almost certainly less than 10% of population. Even if you said 20 minutes instead of an hour, it wouldn’t be a lot of people either
399.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
Sodium light is actually pretty great from light pollution perspective, because it is extremely easy to filter it out, as it is a very narrow band. Astronomers prefer sodium lamps, for example.
400.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
All countries have poor people. The capitalist ones have fewest of them, because capitalism makes poor people wealthier, unlike alternatives, which make them starve and die.
401.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
> There must be sufficient secular reason to have a given law. There are people in this country who believe that this is a "Christian" nation, and even some deep in the bible belt who believe that it should be illegal to be &qu
402.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
You can’t really give many more examples than wireless. There is no way to make concrete that uses much less energy. No way to make steel. No way to heat or cool your home without using a lot of energy. No way to move yourself around to mor
403.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
Ok, if your point is that laws can very much be religiously motivated, as long as they simply don’t mention God in the text of the bill, then yeah, I’m fine with that. This is not a very consequential point.
404.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
This is pretty absurd position, it effectively pushes for disenfranchisement of religious people. Under your theory of the government, religious people are unable to use democratic means to to further their policy goals, if these in any way
405.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
> If you ban the production/distribution of it, it will move to places where those are tolerated. This is a fully general argument against banning anything at all. Nevertheless, we ban things, and moreover, we do not seem to act as
406.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
In practice, the markets still work pretty great even without perfect rationality and information. Those are just assumptions for a mathematical model, not something that must always be satisfied lest everything collapse. Econ classes will
407.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
It doesn’t really matter how much tax is paid by “the rich” (say, top 1 in 1000), because collectively, they make too little money to make much of a difference even if we taxed 100% of their income. What does matter is taxation on top 20% o
408.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
This federal 10%, along with state level funding, is typically used to level the funding across the districts. The equalization of per student spending in school districts across the country has largely already happened, with little to show
409.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
Much more money is spent on climate change propaganda than there is on gas propaganda. I see climate change propaganda almost every day, but pro fossil propaganda extremely rarely. I think that this is because fossil fuels are extremely us
410.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
What about drainage of Aral Sea for short term gain, were Soviet citizens also victims of Soviet neoliberalism?
411.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
> I think that throwing more people in jail technically is a solution, but it's a very expensive one It's not, compared to the costs of the crime. Tangible costs of crime are big enough, and the intangible costs are bigger stil
412.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
> Wild to suggest that the US's issue is not incarcerating enough people considering we are near the top of the global leaderboards on that front. Specifically in comparison to Germany, the incarceration rate is almost 8x higher in
413.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
Probably not, but my bigger point is that all those comments about permaculture typically completely ignore practicalities of large scale agriculture that are absolutely crucial to human flourishing. Gardening is my hobby, and over the year
414.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
Being a cop in Germany is much easier and less risky job than in US, because they have 50% more cops per capita while having something like 15% the crime rate of US. This means that, as a very rough estimate, there is something like 16 time
415.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
> I know who do permaculture seemed like they were excited for robot arms and computer vision to be better and cheaper. If you need robot arms and computer vision, it sounds then like permaculture is impractical at scale necessary for re
416.
by xyzzyz 3y ago
How do harvesting machines work with this mixed planting approach? Do you need to redesign existing machines completely for this novel planting scheme? Won’t it be extremely hard to harvest from one type of plant without damaging other plan
417.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> Global Warming Potential of Methane over a 20 year Time period is a bit more than 80 times that of CO2. Where in the linked document it says that? Because I do not think it’s true.
418.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> Wealthy billions. The poor ones don't eat as much meat and dairy. And it's a good thing ... if they did, we would need not one, but 4-5 Earths to feed everyone. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying: less energy consumption pre
419.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
What an outstanding comment. You put much more effort in it than the person you replied to really deserved.
420.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
Yes, eating meat is essential to flourishing of overwhelming majority of humans. Most humans, as they become wealthier, increase their meat consumption. This is very consistent across the world. If you forced humans to stop eating meat, thi

More ›