It’s nice to see that others get it. Unfortunately, neither of us have any immediate influence on the largest social media platforms.
It’s nice to see that others get it. Unfortunately, neither of us have any immediate influence on the largest social media platforms.
New Jersey has a law like that for gas. Can only increase the price one time per day. But ut doesn’t apply to all gass stations, just ones on the highway rest areas.
You made a good point and I immediately thought that reporting a gross profit dollar amount as an example of how profit margins are not slim as simply inappropriate. And I would have responded myself if you hadn’t. There’s no single dollar figure that can inform anyone about anything useful about the profit margin of a business. A number without context is useless.
I don’t see how that thought process is exclusive to people who are or consider themselves to be smart.
They aren’t saying that this is exclusive to people who consider themselves smart. They’re saying that they’re more likely to fall for the trap by engaging with the assumption of not being susceptible to being tricked. Although I think the author does conflate smart people with people who think of themselves as smart inappropriately.
AT&T simply had the laws protect them from competition for 105 years.
Imagine a system more concerned about healthcare and not itemization of billable services.
Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.
It didn’t take long before people saw that energy was a major factor in cost of operations of the network.
It was a poor design decision
One that is fiercely defended by people who invested into the implementation. So it may not have started with it being anticipated, but not it is and people are actively choosing to perpetuate this use of energy.
Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.
VT for long term
Money Market Funds for short term
If that’s all one wants to consider when evaluating the ethics of the policy in question, then it seems like the “correct” policy.
You seem to have presented a non sequitur based argument.
I wasn’t making any positive claims. I was clarifying the terms of what one might consider “working”. And how we may want to consider how we value people without regard to geopolitical boarders.
You’re defining “work” as Chinese manufactured EVs having less market share. But if that means everyone that buys pays more for an EV and fewer EVs are sold, did it result in the most benefit for American citizens? What about the rest of the world’s population, in which situation is the net benefit greater?
Tarrifs are only a positive in cases where they are conditioned on labor, environmental, and other externalities being priced in and regional subsidies being countered. That seems like the case here.
But I suspect that the threat is being used as a negotiation tactic and China will call the bluff.
Nostr seems like it’s set up to allow for unmitigated abuse.
This is an excellent introduction for those that want to try it out.
Does the NSA need a warrant to purchase information that’s being legally gathered and sold?
The governments in the US shouldn’t be collecting non-public information without a warrant if acquiring that information directly would require a warrant. Seems like a clear infringement of the 4th amendment.
We should look out for all the villagers and reduce the risk of tiger attacks.
Why not use the $9 plan at ghost.org?
Solution? What do they think the problem is?
FYI, I cross posted your question to three Programming.dev communities:
These are conserted efforts to reduce the presence of “undesirables”, also known as homeless or unhoused, in the areas without public bathrooms.
It amazing how hard these companies fight against the things are the most effective (taxes).