forgot_my_pwd

I live in a great town that's about an hour commute from the big city where I work. I would never make as much money as I do now (or find as engaging work) if I looked outside the city. I also have no interest in moving.

Granted I don't hate commuting. Since I take the bus I get a significant amount of reading done.

How many of us don't want to commute to the office 5 days a week, but also don't necessarily like the idea of working from home when not at the office?

My personal ideal is a dedicated office space in a location very close to my home, like in the nearest downtown, where I would pay a certain amount per month in return for a set of days on which I could reserve personal office space.

The issue with working from home for me is that I feel my personal life and work life become messy and entangled if I do too much work at home. Similar to how good sleep hygiene involves doing as few activities other than sleeping on your bed as possible, I feel for my mental wellbeing it's better to physically separate my work life and home life as much as possible.

This has been my thinking for a few weeks now. Aside from bringing us significantly closer to herd immunity, it would increase the pool of eligible plasma donors for plasma antibody therapy.

And those are just the public health benefits. Saving millions of jobs and livelihoods is no small benefit either.

The salaries for NYC and San Francisco seem way too low. Only using base salaries significantly deflates compensation.

It would be easy to issue certificates to people who have been vaccinated. Businesses already have guidelines for who can enter their premises, like wearing shirts in restaurants in spite of not wearing a shirt being legal.

Yeah it seems like there is a straightforward free market solution: you don't get a vaccine, businesses may not allow you on their property or in their stores.

It certainly sounds like you have a pre-existing grudge, so I suppose this supports what I'm saying.

Why didn't the EU pour more resources into treatments and vaccines? I think I'm going to blame them.

See how that works?

I suppose if you already have a grudge against the US you can pick and choose which facts you focus on to try to piece together a narrative that blames the US for this... But of course that narrative is extremely flimsy.

Assigning blame to any one country for a pandemic which is affecting literally the entire world is petty and disingenuous.

All countries on Earth could have done more to prevent this.

Well it's certainly part of the reason.

More philosophically, when one's voting agency is shared with another person, as is the case in ballot harvesting, the opportunity for abuse multiplies. This is why most states have outlawed ballot harvesting.

Consider: I come to your door with a ballot. You had not thought about voting because you didn't particularly care about the candidates, but I am an agent for candidate A and because I got to you before the agent for candidate B, I convince you - good salesman that I am - to vote for someone you wouldn't have otherwise.

Thus the voting process become less about what the voters themselves think or care about and more about which candidate has the most resources to send agents out to ballot harvest.

The corruption that such practices invite completely undermine the voting process and it is only with a blatant disregard for the voting process - a fixation on power above principle - that a state would allow such practices.

What a rhetorically weak and unintelligent opening, which shortsightedly ignores that Presidents who won the popular vote in the past have started wars and engaged in infidelity before. The idea that somehow policies and behaviors that the author has a personal problem with would be avoided by bowing to the popular vote is just silly.

> "Equal representation of states in the Senate, for example, gives citizens of low-population states undue influence in Congress."

As for the above quote, I would have expected more from the HLR. The entire reason why Senators are apportioned as they are is to give low population states extra influence. Supporters of progressive economic policy will immediately understand the reason: smaller states should get the same number of Senators as larger states to balance their weakness relative to these states. Similar reasoning is used to justify transfers of wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

One little talked about reason why this is especially good for the country and its people is that it provides an extra check on the impulses of powerful states that may want to push policy which may not be beneficial for the entire country, or is shortsighted.

It stands to reason that small states may have profoundly different perspectives than large states and so by forcing these different perspectives to come to terms with one another better policy will be the result. If one state or region had complete dominance, there would be no opportunity for debate and the benefits of the reflection that such debate forces.

The entire US system is built with the idea of balance in mind and everything is structured so that the various forces in the nation balance one another.