refurb
I agree on the low build quality, but one thing that I’ve noticed as well is the atrocious ride quality. Hitting a small speed bump results in a jarring shock for the passenger combined with a loud clunk from the car.
I thought it was the road until I road in a few Toyotas over the same road and the speed bump was a gentle rocking of the car.
Not sure if it’s just a consequence of the battery weight or what but it feels like I’m riding in pickup truck when I’m in a BYD
In fact, they often put forward a hypothesis about a company or market and argue for it. I couldn’t think of anything less biased.
Should be exciting
What does that tell you?
Not to mention how often people misinterpret a survey and add their own bias to the results.
I’d say it’s more than revenue growth is below estimates than any “AI fears”
Insert language you know will never get enough votes
Don’t strike out but add language to make it useless
Plus the bill sponsor often makes changes others ask for, so the true author isn’t noted
It would be a mess and ignored by the public after a while
When I lived in Singapore I heard how lucky they were to live in a country where there wasn’t much disagreement (the truth is it had been squeezed out of the population)
Find “potential leads” is something we did plenty of with computational chemistry. We’d get leads that we a “slam dunk” and they’d fail horribly in clinical trials.
Finding leads is easy, finding leads that reliably pan out in the lab is not
You put your family’s needs on the same footing as your own. And you put those two needs far above people outside your family.
That’s exactly my point.
People sometimes act in the good of everyone, usually when the cost isn’t high. But otherwise they act in benefit of themselves or their group, often at the expense of the out group.
You don’t need capitalism for that to happen.
Reading comprehension is important!
This seems entirely made up. Are you telling me food companies test their food for "never feeling satisfied"?
Sure humans are cooperative, but but it's not an either/or scenario. Humans are often incredibly selfish at times, and even if not selfish are often focused on benefit for themselves.
And my point is that it's not unique to capitalism. Even prior to capitalism and under communism, humans are highly focused on benefit for themselves, even at the expense of others.
I find it funny when capitalism is blamed for rent extraction.
First off, extracting profit is not unique to capitalism. It happen in the Soviet Union as well, just on the black market. Even in the legal market workers would "sell" things they had control over for personal benefit. It's not like this disappears with other economic systems - it's a core human behavior to do things that benefit yourself.
Second, almost all of the things you listed - housing, medicine, education - are rent extractions not because of capitalism, but because of government regulations that allowed rent extraction. If people could build as many houses as they want, treat patients without jumping through the AMA quota hoops or charge a tuition that students can actually afford (and not backstopped by the government), none of this rent extraction would happen. We have plenty of examples of those economic sectors where prices are much more reasonable.
If it actually hurt companies they would stop doing it
Once I moved to the city I didn’t know my neighbors. People kept to themselves or the turnover was high.
No narrative spread needed. Voters could figure it out on their own
That's not what I said is it?
I said "I said I find it hard to believe food scientists are devising addictive food".
Clearly they are trying to make their food taste food (LOL, do you want them to make it taste bad?).
There doesn't have to be any conspiratorial evil food scientists to get where we are.
I’d find it hard to believe there are evil food scientists in big food companies who are nefariously designing food for overeating.
What is more likely is they are creating food that taste good, which shouldn’t surprise anyone. Now if the claim is they work towards this goal without much concern about things like sugar content or glycemic index, I could believe that.
But at the same time nobody thinks eating a whole bag of five servings of Doritos is a healthy food choice. If you’re designing good tasting food and assuming people will eat one serving as a part of a healthy diet, then no nefarious goals are required.
It had nothing to do with Reagan or Jerry Brown. They were just responding to what voters wanted.
If the Constitution is violated, then sue in court (as has been done). If the court agrees with the EO, then they don’t think the Constitution is violated.
It’s not unconstitutional because you don’t like the outcome
2. The President has authority over placing judges, as per the Constitution. Every President puts judges they want in, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
3. See point #1
You seem to think the system failed because you don’t understand the powers the Executive has