Cute, but no. They used a theoretical model, not a large behavioural simulation. You could probably run their calculations on a TI-83.
Soleos
joined 1 year ago
On comment threads, every day.
- Do I want to put this out into the world?
- Do I need this in my life right now/is it worth the time?
This reflective exercise has saved me many excessive fixations. And yes, sometimes I do need to make that snarky overly-researched comment that nobody will see.
I read this comment thinking it was satire, then got to the end and was disappointed it wasn't a joke.
I could go without for a day... but if I had dependents, I'd be worried for not just the day, but every day after that too
No. Rent and mortgage are two different things. One is a fee for service and one is a loan.
If your home that you own doubles in market value and you decide to sell it, you pay off the mortgage (loan) and keep the profit (capital gain). If you are renting and the home is sold, you gain nothing.
If your home that you own burns down, you still owe the bank the money you borrowed for purchase (mortgage). If you are renting the home that burned down, you don't owe anybody money. There is to service to pay a fee for anymore.
Like sure, fuck capitalism. But we don't need to misrepresent how these systems work.
I heard he was a democrat in the past and looked up some of his ads/debates during the 2004 election. He criticized tax breaks for the rich and advocated for affordable education and equal opportunity for minorities. Jesus it's like he got replaced by a lizard person.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?183616-1/louisiana-senate-campaign-ads
You could curve the proportion to income to scale impact to something more equitable. How you decide what's equitable would be another problem to solve, but I imagine it would involve benchmarking around the middle class and poverty line. Right now fine rates are okay for the middle class, so keep the proportion similar, fine rates really fuck up poor people, and fine rates mean nothing to the upper class. So imagine you you feel would be a fair impact for a fine and scale it accordingly.
They offer reputation. Career advancement is highly dependent on publication history and impact. Getting into a prestigious publication means your work will more likely be read and cited. Because highly reputable journals can charge high publication fees (because it's in such high demand), they get to set the industry norm, which other less reputable journals/publishers get to follow. It does cost money to develop and maintain that reputation for rigour and impact (i.e. good science). But yeah it's exploitative AF. There are attempts for less profit-motivated publications... But making those rigorous while still being democratic is hard
China's EV's putting brakes on oil demand
I appreciate your statement and generally agree. However, there is nothing complicated or contradictory about the harm caused in rape or the need to protect children from predators.
The difference is less that it's in some circumstances only marginally better. Rather, it's more that when you advocate for better coverage in EU, the pushback might be more along the lines of "that's too expensive or an inefficient use of highly limited taxpayer dollars, but I'm open to continuing to evaluate the impact and economics of it". In the US, sometimes the pushback is "you don't like it? Then GTFO, you communist traitor!"
view more: next ›
Just because not everything needs to be political doesn't mean things that are inherently political stop being politically consequential when you say it doesn't have to be.
Elon in particular has used his wealth to overtly become a political figure. His political power comes from his wealth. Therefore supporting his wealth through your economic choices inherently supports his political activity.