jrock08

This appears to be from 2014. Prior to 2014, using GMO seeds "required" farmers to plant an in-field refuge of non-resistant crops. Since farmers could, short term, get better yields if they didn't plant these refuge plants, they often chose not to. In 2014 companies started mixing in non-resistant seeds, known as "refuge in bag". It's seen some mixed results, but for the most part, it looks like it has helped.

There's a lot of space between the conflict of interest that arises when you lobby congress for a change that would help the company you are the CEO of while your father is a senator and not working.

Examples of some obvious things that really shouldn't be too controversial:

Showing pictures of a massacre

Showing pictures or video from a war

Reading a graphic account of a soldier from war

Showing pictures of mass graves (esp where body parts are identifiable)

Showing pictures or video of a rape (even if a scene from a movie)

Showing pictures of the evidence from a rape

Reading a graphic account of a rape victim

Set up a distribution center on I90 30 miles outside Chicago (e.g. Gary Indiana) set up a distribution center on I80 30 miles outside New York (e.g. Paterson NJ). Use human drivers for the last 30 miles, and automation to drive the rest. The route doesn't go through any heavily trafficked areas except Gary and Cleveland, which you could avoid by starting the route at 9pm for a 9am arrival with travel through Cleveland occurring at 2am. I'd say that with current technology we could probably do this in less than a year. Since trucks cost about 150k new and truck drivers can't drive 12 hours straight, the economics of full automation are much easier to justify.

I think the video and website are pretty obviously parody. But, if you are having a hard time discerning it as parody, don't you think that's the NRA's fault?

Poverty in parents is highly predictive of poverty in children. Single motherhood is also correlated with poverty. It's possible that single motherhood increases the chance that a child will also live in poverty as an adult, but the vast majority of the effect is probably explained by generational poverty.

If only home ownership weren't correlated with generational wealth. Then we'd have a meritocracy, and you could dismiss people renting as bad decision makers. In the real world, people rent because they can't afford to buy a home.

> Any policy that would cause people to be forced from their homes just because should be viewed as a failure.

I have a really really hard time feeling bad for people who bought homes in the bay area in ~1980. They won the lottery. Their home grew 10% y/y for 30 years outpacing inflation by a significant margin. They got a 30 year tax break while their income likely outpaced inflation as well because they live in an extremely good job market. That house they bought for 100k is now worth 1.7 Million. They can sell the home, move basically anywhere else in the country, and retire on the remaining gain. Yeah, I'm having a hard time feeling too bad for them.

On the other hand, the person who moved to SF in 1980 and decided to rent, I feel bad for them. Unless they found a rent controlled apartment, they've seen their rents grow 10% y/y, and if they found a rent controlled apartment they probably got evicted when the owners of the property sold it, and the new owners decided they wanted to redo the property as condos.

Lets just call it what it is, rent control for rich people. Then maybe we'll talk about it sensibly and realize that it's a horribly thought out plan.

> Maybe these landlords have historically had issues with [black people] and prefer not to rent to them.

Yeah... that's called racism: the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics specific to that race.

> They own the property and ultimately it's their choice.

Yes it is their choice to either accept candidates regardless of race or delist their property and cease renting if they wish to be discriminatory in their rental practices.

Except that consumption based taxes encourage wealth hoarding, and are extremely regressive for families that spend most or all of their income. A better format would be a "average middle class household cost of living" adjustment.

If any part of the site is meant to assassinate my character, I could sue you for defamation in the necessary jurisdiction. Alternatively, I could work to improve the SEO scores of my personal and professional pages, acknowledge that you are attempting to character assassinate me in my pages, and move on with my life. The problem is that in reality what's happening is that people who made stupid mistakes as teenagers are now realizing that their arrest record is searchable, and I feel terrible for them, but wouldn't it be better dealt with by passing laws to thwart the arrest record sites rather than forcing every site that indexes content to delist on a case-by-case basis.