okreallywtf

The explanation is in the first sentence: "Early data indicate a year-on-year 14% jump in fatality rates per distance driven in March, the document by the National Safety Council (NSC) says."

The number of deaths is down, but the deaths per mile are up.

How do you know that it was a brown recluse? I'm not disputing, I'm just wondering if it was assumed based on the injury or if you were able to find the actual spider.

Maybe we need progressive pricing?

I've had discussions with coworkers and friends about this issue and similar issues where there is a lot of moral ambiguity but a lot less academic ambiguity - we basically know what works and doesn't work but what does work is not morally acceptable to about half the country. It is super frustrating to a lot of us because there doesn't seem to be a way to reach them, they can change their minds but only when they are personally affected by the issue but it doesn't seem to then spread much to their peers.

To paraphrase one conversation that reminded me a lot of the larger national conversation "I play by the rules, why shouldn't everyone else?". It didn't matter that punishment didn't help or in a lot of cases, was costing them more and having worse outcomes, the larger (and to me, more trivial) moral and emotional argument won out.

This feels like satire, I don't believe this person is being genuine.

What are you referring to exactly?

This is one of my favorite Arthur C Clark books. What makes his books so interesting is that the technology aspects are very much sidelined by the human aspects. I don't think it appeals as much to people who enjoy hard sci-fi with a lot of jargon but I've always loved how interesting technological ideas are almost used offhandedly as plot devices but the real story is always the people (even if his concepts for the technology are groundbreaking to the reader or to the field at large).

I feel the same thing about renewable energy and climate change - a top down approach could have such massive impact, but a bottom up approach is so difficult. There are thousands of groups (there are literally a dozen probably coordinating together in my mid sized city alone) all trying to do the same work from the bottom up and on the ground with churches, local governments, individuals etc but it requires so much pressure and buy in from your average citizen to get anything done that way.

Am I being downvoted for being too partisan or not partisan enough?

I'm hesitant to give Obama credit, but I think Trump claiming that the unemployment rate was 30, 40, 50% during the election and immediately taking credit for the unemployment numbers in january 2017 was so disingenuous that it truly boggles the mind. Anyone that gives Trump credit for the current trajectory of unemployment numbers is beyond the pale.

Giving Obama credit to me is at the very least questionable - things were at rock bottom, they could almost only go up (and I supported Obama). There are so few absolutes to hold on to in terms of economic indicators for the layperson, but its hard to see how the Obama years were an economic catastrophe, and unfortunately we'll never know what the effect of a larger stimulus might have been (or no stimulus for that matter).

Not to mention how unpopular this is with his evangelical supporters (which is to say, 80+% of all evangelicals), private prison companies, etc.

This won't happen, this is the kind of thing he throws out there and walks back or just forgets about. He gets the benefit of giving someone a moment of "hey, thats pretty reasonable!" that might stick with them, despite the fact that there is almost no way he'll maintain that position or ever do anything to achieve it.

Same here, I've started 2 or 3 times and not liked any of my own implementations, this might actually be useful to me tonight.