susijdjdjxa

I’m having a hard time squaring reasons 1 and 2. If legacy admits struggle, are they really being coddled? Personally, I didn’t apply to Hopkins because it sounded like boot camp. So your reason 2 seems a lot more plausible.

The funding for this research is minuscule fraction compared to the agriculture industry. Exploring this part of the potential solution space is worthwhile, even if it doesn’t end up being the best way forward. We need to look into all the options to have a chance at finding out what works best. This article is actually about research of an an alternative agricultural process so it’s odd to naysay it in the same comment.

Sure you could choose to define the terms that way, but I think it would cause confusion given the wide understanding that climate change refers specifically to the phenomenon formerly known as global warming.

Running a company such as this is like living in a shark tank. Powerful, convincing people are going to lobby you to do what they think you ought to be doing. See the recent privatization of .org for how things can go wrong. You need the right person at the helm with strong convictions.

The Ivy no-loan policies are a relatively recent development.

Trading based on inside information? This is verging on “not even wrong”. Are you aware that Theranos was not a public company?

Two hours is a very long Caltrain, do you live in Gilroy or something?

Currently there is a very high rate of HOV lane violations. I wonder if they’ll enforce it more when it becomes a toll lane too.

I think this argument fails because “firm-space” is sparse. There are many companies, but there are way more possible companies given all the degrees of freedom. Also, the number of “competition events” is small. Companies don’t have the opportunity to run gradient descent to optimize themselves. A bunch of companies can make the same bad decision for the same bad reason, and they will each succeed or fail because of a bunch of unrelated factors.

I think the “outcompeted” argument proves too much. Nobody does anything wrong, otherwise they would be outcompeted.

Think about how when an announcement is made, a bunch of detailed news stories drop at the same moment. This is pre-arranged. Companies employ PR professionals (or contract with PR firms) who have relationships with news outlets and they pitch stories via those relationships. The news outlet does need to be careful about whether to take these stories at face value if it has a reputation to protect. It also goes for politicians, sports teams, all sorts of entities who care about public relations.

> Plus, the rules that interacted with establishment support to facilitate Clinton's win in 2016 were abolishes almost immediately due largely to the influence the Sanders factions gained in the DNC despite not winning the nomination, so even a Clinton clone with an electorate with no hindsight to 2016 failures would have a harder time.

Hillary won the primary with 16.9M votes to Sanders’ 13.2M, are you telling me Democratic Party has changed its rules such that someone wins the vote like that won’t win the nomination?

Our moral intuitions are almost entirely determined by the society we live in. 30 years ago, 30% of people in the US supported gay marriage, and now it’s over 60%. Do you believe the number of good people doubled during that time?

I’m gay, and to me the animal farming industry is obviously more wrong than banning same-sex marriage. Yet almost everyone in both of the political tribes eats meat.

My values fall in line with the left in most areas, so I generally associate and agree with left-wingers. This means I get exposed to a lot of left-wing perspectives and media, so to me, it appears that the Republicans are constantly being evil. But then again, everyone on both sides is eating meat, so how different can they possibly be?

I don’t understand, can you elaborate? Hiding some of your income reduces your tax paid regardless of whether you take the standard deduction.