lurgburg

Wasn't Germany's WWII "synthetic fuel" just coal derived gasoline?

Presumably we're banning braces as well then.

Writing in context of preceding comment, which seemed to be predicated on them having a special capacity to raise prices in response to land taxes.

I did wonder briefly if a land tax might decrease competition => higher prices, but then I recalled that the supply of land is fixed.

Writing in the context of preceding comment. Landlords increase prices as much as they're able, they don't decline to increase when they could to maintain some fixed margin. I'm not saying they're generally unable to rise prices in general, but that they have no special additional capacity to raise prices in response to land taxes.

LVT is generally conceptualised as proportional to the value of the land, not it's area.

> they all increased their rent

Why would they not have done this before, if they could? Landlords aren't trying to maintain some fixed margin, they want as much as possible, always.

"Better" is just presupposing the conclusion: that there is something inherently superior about certain styles. That thinking is precisely the "language ideology" the authors are concerned about!

Better for who? For what purpose?

> It let me buy a property which I wouldn't be able to without HTB

Possibly you're taking the wrong counterfactual here?

"If I hadn't HTB but everyone else did" vs "If no-one had HTB".

It's possible you're quite right about the first, but it tells us little about the second. Possibly in the presence of HTB, prices just rise again until they reach their equilibrium of just-barely-affordable.

OTOH an individual parent has to expend a lot more effort to create controls than a government. An individual parent can't mandate technology companies install controls that automatically regulate their child's play; they have to manually monitor+manage it at some cost of time+effort to themselves.

A wonkish trick would be for the government to mandate controls with sensible defaults but allow parents to tune them I guess?

You have, say, 10 different drugs you might use along with Ivermectin in a "multi-drug regime". From these 10 drugs, you can generate 10-choose-4 = 5040 different 4-drug regimes. As many as you please, effectively.

Assuming Ivermectin is useless, and your study is p95, how many false positives do you expect to get?

Perhaps the world has changed somewhat in the last 10000 years.

Because directly blaming Cuba would be all downside, no upside. If they directly and straightforwardly blamed Cuba, Serious Readers might actually wonder about their basis for doing so (as there isn't one), and might actually think critically about what they're reading. But if they blare "HAVANA SYNDROME" at the top, the majority take the intended message, and the Serious Readers say "well it's all very complex, there's a lot we don't know, who can say?"

Do you think that the majority of people read the full article?

Do you think the CIA thinks the majority of people read the full article?

Do you think the CIA engages honestly with the press to simply provide information to the public?

GP's analysis is correct: the CIA knows that people will read vaguely and shallowly and take away a confused anti-cuban sentiment, and this is their intended outcome. "Heavily suggested" doesn't mean "actually, if you read the full article, they didn't say that", it means they're heavily trying to suggest this.