omgwtfbyobbq

Isn't the nuance mostly or only the fraudulently obtained debit cards?

I suspect the case hinged on that, and everything else was legal, albeit part of the fraud, and was included as a complete description of the scheme.

To be fair, I'm guessing he couldn't have created the scale of fake accounts without debit card fraud, but creating multiple accounts, even if they're fake, is usually just a TOS violation, or maybe a civil matter, not criminal.

Alone, their annual streaming revenue was something like $10 billion each compared to Netflix/YouTube at $50-$60 billion each, so they're lagging (eg radio vs TV).

It doesn't, it's literally contradictory.

Just like blood quantum and the one drop rule.

The purpose and/or selective enforcement of law applied to one group but not to another, applied in a contradictory way, etc... is to make certain people/groups richer at the expense of others.

https://youtu.be/8ljmXvI_9tk

They do need to be held accountable, and their access to systems like this needs to be limited and/or stopped.

If punishing bad actors alone was enough we wouldn't have a ton of 4th amendment case law.

It's both.

There will always be cops willing to misuse whatever they have access to.

Part of it is holding cops accountable in these situations. Part of it is limiting or stopping the use of these systems so cops don't have as many opportunities to abuse them.

IIRC, besides being pain caused by physical problems, it can also be pain caused by nerve issues (slightly different), and pain caused by your brain (very different, could be multiple causes there).

If surgery doesn't help, and/or like the other commenter mentioned, people with similar physical characteristics don't have pain, then it's time to explore the other two.

Sure. A lot of that money doesn't even make it to intended recipients because of corporate welfare and inefficiencies in government.

https://youtu.be/YKAD7l1a9hc

In addition, there should probably be changes to laws/regulations to address companies that exploit the poorest.

https://youtu.be/U9Rls-_7LdQ

And, many people who are poor have persistent mental/physical disabilities, so part of that spending is because many of these people have it the hardest.

With that said, we could likely fix all of these things and significantly unequal wealth distribution would still result in a lot of poverty.

In California some percentage of certain developments need to be rental controlled, so those are exempt from increases for those lower income folks, but I'm sure the difference would be spread out among everyone who isn't rent controlled.

Nothing I'm aware of stops that.

In practice, at least from what I've read, in TX, the largest/wealthiest companies get the biggest/best tax breaks (eg Tesla), and end up paying proportionally less, so it's somewhat regressive.

I think we should start with changing taxes on corporations/companies, specifically being able to indefinitely write off expenses against income regardless of size/etc...

Most companies take profit eventually, but if it's possible for a company to decide to never take profit and grow/acquire perpetually without paying any taxes on gross income, that's a problem.

That'd be like individuals being able to deduct living expenses and having uncapped pre-tax 401k contributions.

Yeah, that's unlikely. There are certain classes of renters it can't be passed on to during their rental term, but I'm guessing it can and likely would in general.

People can also sell their land/homes and move. It's less liquid than other assets, but less doesn't mean people won't sell/leave.

I think this is a different situation than what you're describing. It's one thing when a company acts in their own interests, their communications are consistent with that, you observe that, and align with them (or don't).

It's another when they say they're going to do one thing, you align with them, and then they do another later. That's generally frowned upon morally because it's considered to be deceptive/untruthful.

It's not surprising, but that doesn't mean people should be ok with it, especially when other businesses get by fine making more ethical business choices, or at least avoid outright lying for their own benefit.

The problem with drawdowns is they can and have compromised the structural integrity of the caverns used in the SPR. Like oil, they're a finite resource and should be used judiciously.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/2585591

IIRC there were also posts about this in the shortages subreddit around the same time.

That's the rebound effect, and is fairly common. Jevons is a relatively uncommon edge case.

My insurance is getting to the point where I might do the same. My car is worth maybe a third of what it was new, and my monthly insurance bill is the same, it's nuts. I may go with a significantly higher deductible as a compromise.

By the definition of per capita. If only a small group of people have significant more emissions than the rest of the world, then they're only increasing the average by a small amount, but that's still worse, not better.

Practically speaking, GHG emissions tend to follow income more than country, and that's where a minority (10+%?) of people are responsible for about half of emissions.

https://populationmatters.org/news/2022/02/fat-cats-and-foss...

And I agree that China policy is partially responsible for their industrialization, and that's on the Chinese government, but not on the Chinese people.

Along the same lines, comparatively wealthy Americans (and wealth Chinese, etc...) blaming others for GHG emissions is the primary problem, and like you said, ignoring that deprives them of responsibility for their actions.

Usually, normal insurance is reasonable, or if it's not, you get liability only because the difference in cost is enough to buy another car after a few years.

Unfortunately there's a fair bit if industry built around charging people who are stretched financially more, but it's possible to avoid that.

Per capita is worse by definition, unless your arguing that people with higher per capita emissions are somehow more valuable to society than those with lower.

The other aspect is that China provides a large industrial base for the West, which is arguably the West just externalizing/offshoring their emissions anyway.

It think it's both. The more stuff you have, the more you hoard, and the less you need to pay in terms of time/energy/money to get something you had in the past if you need it now/later, and on the flip side, you can be more minimalist, and will need to spend more time/energy/money to get the things you threw away/gave away/sold if you need them now/later.

It's mostly a resource/constraint time/space/money/effort problem.

Or distributed (grids) if they can't be defended. But yeah, most large infrastructure is susceptible to strikes by adversaries. Satellites are I think more delicate, difficult to replace, and easier to strike in certain cases.

It's possible. IIRC, the large powers have enough mobile nuclear capabilities that even if they suffered from a first strike, they could still retaliate and cripple the striking country, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

It's pretty much what Iran is doing to the US now with their supply of mobile ballistic missiles and drones, but on a global scale with subs/etc... added to the mix.

I think the point is that there are scenarios where large powers would disable/destroy each other's satellites without using nuclear weapons and we would be poorly prepared to replace them.

Yuck... They increased a bit ($150+?) after the GPU unlock came out, but they're nuts now.

Because they likely have a better sense of what could and/or will be fruitful. Same reason an experienced mathematician likely is better at this than a random person off the street.

There are 5th amendment issues too IIRC.

I have an M5 pro at work, and certain things are a smidge faster than my personal M1 Max, but they're pretty close overall.

Given how much more you can get buying used versus new, I'd go used unless there's some feature/characteristic only the new hardware has.

Having said that, I could see stuff slowing down over time with OS updates/etc. I've had my M1 air for a while, and some UI stuff was slower after specific updates (I think glass in particular).

Depending on what motivations are, separate controlling interest from personal wealth, at least above some reasonable limit.

Obviously easier said than done, but unless the predominant incentive for everyone is just to generate more wealth for themselves/relatives/etc, other existing incentives should be sufficient to invest.

The government needs regulation to allow access without granting consent in certain cases. Not quite as far as declaring something a utility, but better than almost completely unregulated.

Yup, but then you have other limitations, like significantly worse high speed range and correspondingly less useful soar charging.

Someone already did it with a Model Y, so it's doable for $25k-35k now.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/self-contained-solar...

It's trade offs regardless. Kei car sized EVs with solar have a niche, reasonably efficient full sized EVs with portable solar arrays have a niche, and hopefully Aptera will fill a third niche (higher speed/more usable range/more efficient than others with less storage/space)