anamax
There were three alternatives: [1] Don't spend on defense. [2] Spend on defense and buy American. [3] Spend on defense and buy European.
Europe (modulo Poland) picked the worst one. Even [2] is better than [1].
However, Europe did get a couple of decades of "Russia isn't a threat" and "we have soft power" posturing.
But, it turns out that the cowboys were right. There was a bear in the woods.
Do you really believe that landlords will subsidize tenants for a long time?
More to the point, if landlords are losing money, why would anyone build rental housing? Instead, why wouldn't they take housing off the market?
If there are 5x as many truck runs, the trash per truck is 1/5th.
The more likely result is that each of the providers runs far fewer trucks than a single provider would because trucks and drivers cost money. Unless the 5 companies figure out how to get the total revenue to 5x, they can't pay for that.
Let's do an example.
Suppose we have a street with 100 houses and it takes 5 houses to fill a truck. Therefore, it will take 20 truck runs to collect that street's trash.
If there is only one trash company, it will need 20 truck runs to service that street.
If there are five trash companies, each with an equal share of those 100 houses, each of those companies needs only 4 runs to service its 20 houses. Why would any of them do more runs?
Yes, the average distance per run may be higher for the 5 companies, but it won't be 5x.
I mention both rates and "fraction of GDP" because rates can't be spent.
The maximum take is around 20%, regardless of rates, and we're there now, and have been for decades.
So, why does Europe need/want the US in NATO?
It can't be resources - Europe is rich. More to the point, Europe has almost 10x Russia's GDP and about 2.5x the population.
So, unless Europe is worried about Germany, it can handle its defense.
Show the US how it's done.
EVs in CA have a special $121 tax to make up for "don't pay gas tax."
The mileage-based road tax is for other reasons.
Note that said "prime real estate" is not exclusive; it doesn't reduce your ability to enjoy said scenic overlook for free.
If there's no reporting rule, there's no reason for govt to have that information.
Can AI's trash a room at Hotel Marmont? Dump their girlfriends when said girlfriends turn 25? Become Scientologists?
That's a join in an existing database.
Where's the database and what's the code for this case?
Very similar techniques were used to influence web search.
And before that, 1984.
And it wasn't new then.
Assume for the sake of argument that the large object space is for objects >=1MB.
Allocate lots of 1MB objects then free every other one (by address).
Unless you're willing to let the large object space grow without bounds....
Brakes generate very fine dust that cools off almost immediately.
Yes, Sleeping Beauty, et al were originally from "not the US" countries, very few people outside those countries remembers that. Instead, they're Disney, or at least US.
What definition of "some people" and "unfair" are we using?
I ask because I'm pretty sure that Obama's daughters "have a bias in their favor" in comparison with my lily-white nieces. (The parents of said nieces make around $40k/year.)
Is it fair to apply "countermeasures" to benefit said daughters relative to said nieces?
You can argue that said nieces have an unfair bias relative to similarly situated black children, but that's not how these systems tend to work.
And, it's not just Obama's daughters.
Copied from google's response to "new york times governance"
Google's AI also says that the NYT has had that structure since 1957.
Ford has something similar from the 1930s. (Dodge did too until it was bought.) Raylon (synthetic textiles) did it in the 1920s and the company behind Jack Daniels did it right after Prohibition.
Google says that the NYSE banned dual-class between 1926 and 1986; I don't know how to reconcile that with Ford.
Feel free to tell them that they're wrong.
binary floating point, let alone IEEE, is almost useless for implementing decimal arithmetic.
That's sort of correct (the number is $8,600) wrt direct contributions but direct contributions are not the only way to fund a Roth IRA.
Roth IRAs can also be funded by converting a regular IRA or by rolling a Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA. A regular IRA can be funded by rolling a 401(k).
This is relevant because the contribution limits for 401(k)s, roth or otherwise, are significantly higher than the IRA contribution limits.
The actual yearly contribution limit for both Roth 401(k)s and regular 401(k)s is $70k. Employers are allowed to cap the employee contribution at $23k, but the employer+employee contribution limit is $70k and employers that don't contribute their max ($70k-$23k) can let employees make up the difference. (And, if you're over 55, the $70k is actually $82k.)
Google "backdoor ira" to find out more.