justchilly

More likely they're seen as vulnerable demographic or unwelcome in certain neighborhoods. The people perpetrating these crimes are not the sort of people tracking the US-China relations.

Everything else aside, the OP didn't say they were married. That brings the rate a lot closer to what OP said than 29%.

You're looking at arrest data, not incident data. Very likely arrests are down because police deprioritized non-felony crimes post prop 47.

Typical office leases are 3-5 years. This is just the tip of the iceberg. So far <20% have been up for renewal since the pandemic started, and even fewer since it became clear that things were not going back to normal within a few months.

> This is a great article around why "corporate welfare" rarely works out.

Any data to back this up? It's generally accepted that subsidies are effective in many cases (see corona virus stimulus packages).

This Foxconn deal was poorly thought out and horribly mismanaged, but it doesn't sound like Foxconn lined their pockets with taxpayer money. The subsidies encouraged them to take a chance, and it didn't work out - spectacularly.

Wearing masks won't make this end any sooner. Reducing transmission rates flattens the curve meaning smaller spikes but likely longer presence of corona virus.

And their trades are typically scheduled in advance and public. Their job and fiduciary duty is to maximize shareholder value, and they make decisions so that happens. If that means allocating $ and rewarding people that will attain that goal, then what should be considered illegal?

How much would you be willing to pay for a comparable headset without a required facebook account.

Clearly FB is planning to extract value from this, and is why they can price this at just $299. They're betting customers will give up some data/privacy for that low price.

Interesting point. Anecdotally I had a brown friend walk out of my house in SF late one night, walk to the end of the block, and then get detained by police for supposedly stalking/threatening a women. Would have been trivial to prove they had the wrong guy if there were cameras readily available.

The argument that "if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere" has been shown to work extraordinarily well when it comes to businesses choosing to go elsewhere rather than serve high crime neighborhoods. In fact it's a big part of why people from those neighborhoods lack opportunity.

...which is fine and well within their rights. Businesses don't have to offer people any services if those people don't want to follow their rules. Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

This will put a lot of smaller/indie movies out of contention. Particularly from non-minority foreign countries. Meanwhile, recent best picture winners were rather homogeneous: Parasite Won in 2019. Moonlight in 2017.

> Undermining trust in society is an enormous problem. The whole reason the west was successful is because people can go about their day without having to worry about nominal costs of corruption in day to day life.

Not worrying about the nominal cost of corruption is not the whole reason the west was successful. There are countless of arguments from both sides of the aisle that would show that to be untrue (capitalism, democracy, reward for innovation, acceptance of immigrants, pillaging land/resources, exploiting slaves, etc). The US has always had plenty of corruption so arguing that a lack of it is what made the west successful is difficult to justify.

> Eventually, you end up like a third world country where you expect to pay a bribe or know someone to get anything done.

There are laws today that prohibit bribery of police officers and they are enforced. Not sure this slippery slope type of argument holds water in the face of that.