theurerjohn3

I'm not so confident in that first claim, and my anecdotal evidence doesn't support your theory.

However you did mention some other studies on this thread that support your claim this is a regressive tax, I'm worried I missed them, can you share the links?

is it? i dont see the relevant other studies, and my initial assumptions would be that the median subway user is lower income than the median car driver in NYC, so transfering funds from car drivers to subway improvements would be progressive.

However NYC's transit is notoriously bad at spending, so not sure it would achive that. Which studies linked in this thread are you refering to? I cant see them.

Im not sure this fits, they saw a much larger drop (18%) in heavy duty trucks entering the city, and a smaller drop (9%) in passenger cars. I am not sure the public transit options are close alternatives for heavy duty trucks.

I am a little confused, why would sloppiness in the media release (the article that uses the word tailpipe), have anything to do with sloppiness in the study, which the above comment clearly highlights is about PM2.5, not specifically tailpipe emissions?

Are Yale's media releases typically done by the people who do the study?

by my reading that is the authors point? if they are capable of getting a 700k loan, that makes them ↑5, regardless of their income or assets.

There is a vast gap in how academia treats adjunct vs tenure track professors, a difference the author of this blog has spent a decent amount of words explaining and complaining about.

> So did they buy these stocks from Intel itself?

in a sense, although buy is not quite the right word. there were grants promised to chip manufacturers under certian conditions. trump decided to wave those conditions just for intel in exchange for 10% of the company.

> Does that dilute the share other intel stock owners have?

no, the shares were already existing and owned by intel.

I mean, when the press secretary was asked why tesla wasnt invited, he said they invited the 3 largest employers of UAW. it sounds like a UAW event called 'Electric Vehicle Summit'?

What led you to belive it wasnt about the UAW? just the name of the event?

i think there may have been some confusion about the parent comment

you are both agreeing that where the fuels come from matters. If you want to burn fossil fuels in a manner to keep atmospheric carbon neutral using the approach specified in

> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for food and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine?

then the correct approach would be

> Why would growing corn for ethanol and burning it in an engine be any climate-friendlier than growing that same corn for *burying in the ground* and burning an equivalent amount of gasoline in an engine?

unless i am misunderstanding these two comments? some clarity would be great!

its a cryptocurrency, the courts legitimacy would likely come from the community forking as necessary to resolve issues as identified by the court, in the same way the us judicial branch gets its legitimacy from the us executive branch employing force as necessary to resolve issues as identified by that court.

its a broader group to convince, sure, but there is a clear 'or else' from which the court can get that legitimacy. 'return the money or else we will return it for you' is a meaningful or else

Apologies if you thought I meant this. I was using them as a reference for what people modeling the election from polls were predicting!

I don't know what Nate Silver was predicting. Was he predicting a near-split election or the situation where "someone is decently likely to win decisively, but we don't know who"?

Uh, we did push further north?

That's why China intervened?

I am not sure what exactly you are suggesting here, but its hard to believe that a nuclear war against china (and likely the USSR) in 1951 as MacArthur seemed to believe was necessary to recover North Korea would have been a net positive.