abugheratwork

That sentiment makes sense to me. Investing in real schooling makes a lot more sense, though.

> Perhaps before every meal I could be forced to calculate the number of calories in each item, total them up and submit them.

That's called Weight Watchers. The general principle was pretty effective for me. Most people don't keep a log of wear and tear on their car, but we definitely operate airplanes that way. That also seems pretty productive to me.

But yeah, it's not the only way to operate. I don't really like the idea of putting more responsibility on people in order to "raise awareness". I take that to really mean someone would like everyone to be more upset about taxes, and would like to make them less convenient to increase upsetness.

How much does Malta slow down the wind?

> The ideology to have little or no state debt is hurting the economy and will do so in the future.

Ideology can be pretty dangerous. This seems like your main point. Back up, though:

> [...] state debt is not like personal or corparate debt. If you cut your spending to pay of a loan, it is usually not a problem.

How is it less of a problem for a person, or for a corporation, than for a government, to have to reduce spending?

> They've been told socialized medicine is evil communist plot to steal their hard earned money.

Mind reading a bit, here: This line might be taken as an ungenerous representation of a different point of view, and likely to generate more emotional argument than productive discussion.

> What are the motives for leaking information regarding our actions on foreign soil against foreign [human beings]?

Which side of an imaginary line you were born on should not determine your rights. If he leaked documents about operations against Americans, and then also about operations against foreigners, in my mind he did the same thing twice.

If there was another difference, like spilling the location or identity of a person likely to be at risk, please spell that out. I have yet to see an example.

$21.00 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 43,680 in pay, for roughly one year.

$3,706 x 12 months = $44,472 in rent.

That's the first number I found on google for "san francisco average rent price" (without quotes).

I agree that those numbers are insane. Accusing someone who makes less than he needs to rent decent housing of complaining seems quite wrong. I understand that San Francisco is at the high end of cost of living. It's also where Uber and Lyft are centered.

The point of the article seems to be that Uber and Lyft support this idea because they're hoping to undermine more meaningful protective legislation, specifically California Assembly Bill 5.

Claiming that this low-ball offer from large corporations would be too hurtful to those corporations, and far too generous to their workers, would be ... insane, right?

Regarding keyboards, maybe at least don't automatically trust a SECOND keyboard? Even when user interaction isn't possible until the device is active, as someone else pointed out, you can at least send a warning to the user's display.

Isn't that just a wrapper for the same search engines?

I believe the intended impact is to prevent pictures of oneself from becoming famous, by making sure that they are censored.

The censorship trick won't work globally, and won't block authorities from seeing the picture, but I think the real goal is to avoid becoming individually well known within China as a dissident.

Assuming everything you say is true ... your point is what? This hypothetical person would probably not be executed? Going through a trial for your own sexual orientation but being acquitted doesn't sound like a great time to me.

deogeo wrote: > Is a car manufacturer going to take more risks because of low interest rates?

It seems possible. Vehicles change every year. The amount and ways they change must be affected by available funding, perceived risk, and probably lots of other factors. A lower interest loan could make a risky prototyping project more attractive.

Even if car companies were really stuck doing one thing, shareholders are not. If car companies produce a slow, steady profit, and other investments are producing higher profits on average, chaotically, people will divest from cars and invest in a diverse portfolio of chaos.

I agree with what seems like your point, though. I don't understand propping up markets and businesses in order to help people, when we could just help people.

"Society" is not a thing that can wield control. Or rather it can, by forming into things like governments and corporations. It is not parallel to those things, but their substrate.

I'm with you that seeing power concentrated in those places seems worse than spreading it out. But the way it looks to me now, people aren't going to generally mind their own bitcoin wallets, and will tend to use centralized brokers.

I think that's human nature, specifically some algorithm for operating in a group. If I don't feel confident doing X, maybe X is not my strong suit, and I should trade jobs with another person. If I mess up my crypto wallet, my money could almost literally disappear, so my confidence is low.

People are afraid to control their own destiny, and that's at least somewhat rational.

I always think they should just take it down and put up a sign that says, "Too cheap for towels." It won't damage my hearing and will get my hands just as dry.