peteey

Right now adult Americans can freely chose to live with their parents, and overwhelmingly chose not to.

The article links ownership to costs. Attributing diminishing ownership as "norm float" needs some justification. I suspect multi-generational norms seen elsewhere are rooted in poverty and a lack of opportunity.

Suppose I told you I am losing weight because I cannot afford food, I don't think you should speculate I chose to go on a diet.

Generally agreed. Though, Daniel Tiger and Paw Patrol should be judged differently. Paw Patrol is mindless and addictive.

If you desperately need a distraction, PBS shows are less bad. A few moments of pacification may be worth not disturbing the other airline travelers.

Daniel Tiger may be helpful to parents too. Interacting with children is not intuitive. Techniques from PBS shows have helped me. For example, singing to kids about trying food is move effective than a well reasoned monologue.

>The other option is to let MBAs run Intel even further into the ground

or worse, the government runs Intel into the ground while constantly taking more taxes to prop it back up.

Incompetent private companies eventually dissolve. Uncle Sam can siphon your paycheck in perpetuity.

>electric bikes

Its not safe to cycle for practical purposes in my city.

The city make gestures like painting a few road shoulders green and nature trails for exercise. This does not get me to work, daycare, the dentist, etc.

Generally in America, bikes are more of a novelty than transportation.

>limited supply is an unintended outcome.

I have been to many city council meetings. Stymieing population growth is an explicit goal. The speakers tend to perceive harms from more people as opposed to pure misanthropes.

e.g. "More people creates more traffic so we should prevent housing to prevent people"

Although, I cannot see their true intents. It is possible the speakers do dislike people, which is not politically popular. Expressing their desire requires making up other tangential causes. Hidden agendas creates engineering confusion. If the goal was truly to manage traffic, an engineer would suggest better bus routes.

Yes and no. Lithium metal is the highly reactive element in batteries.

Similar to Hydrogen and Sodium, elements in the first column of the periodic table are highly reactive (flammable) because they readily give away their single electron in the outermost orbital.

Some Lithium battery variants might have marginally safer properties, but they are fundamentally volatile at full charge.

The point is:

>Medicare should restructure hospice reimbursement to cover more of the hands-on caregiving, thus decreasing the financial burden of dying at home.

The main pitch is somewhat hidden in the middle of the article. Its a tough point to open with, but I think leading with the thesis statement is proper.

>more skeptical and nuanced

Than what? The Economist is UK based too.

The Economist tends to favor the US because the Economist supports liberal democracy and free trade worldwide. The Unites States is the only country who can and does defend those values. Europe cannot arm Ukraine against Putin. Japan cannot dispute China's claims rights to Taiwan or the ocean.

>some of the design, planning and early engineering is within the realm of what a professional civil servant could do.

There's nuance to consulting costs. The government GS pay scale poorly accounts for specialized labor. It the government cannot pay to attract talent in a competitive fields, it must instead pay consultants.

I'm more likely to visit chip manufacture's forum with problems. TI and Microchip have paid experts who will answer my question.

C itself is simple compared to other languages. The last time I visited Stack overflow was for a niche IDE setting.

Corn makes up more than 10% of global food production. A significant fraction of the world would not 'survive' if those fields of corn suddenly disappeared.

A better example would be specifically corn used for ethanol because driving a car is not essential for survival.

The other two examples seem valid. Replacing part of your meat consumption with corn would reduce the required agricultural land.