sbaoufbasfub

I could get behind that position, but what factors make you think the boom is sustained? I'm not from Seattle, so I'm kind of in the peanut gallery, but if Seattle's economy is based on a few large companies or a single industry, that would be a problem. What does the economic composition of Seattle look like?

I found this interesting article that claims that flu days / sick days reduced the number of workplace cases by 6% by reducing the in-workplace transmission rate by 25% for one day and 40% for two days of time off.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613161831.h...

I wonder if maybe there's a downside to making the housing affordable by building out. If you build out during the boom years, what happens when the boom subsides? You'll end up with a city full of run down infrastructure that the city can't support on a smaller tax base. It makes sense to me to expand housing, I'm just not sure how much.

I think sick days are generally a good idea as they encourage people that are sick not to come in, thus helping stem epidemics. If they're regular time off, people come in sick to save them up.

You might try to make a distinction between contagious and non-contagious diseases, but it'd probably be unwise as often people don't know if they are contagious or not, and anyway encouraging healing isn't a terrible idea even if they aren't.

That said, you shouldn't be cheap on the vacation days either.

Here's a video on Noam Chomsky and manufacturing consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTBWfkE7BXU

Sorry by START II, I meant New Start. START II was cancelled before it went into effect in retaliation for George W. Bush cancelling the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty.

The other answer is like the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and START I,II. Intrusive verification by international bodies with penalties for non-compliance. It hasn't been perfect, but so far the world hasn't ended.

I thought we had signed an international treaty against militarizing space and other celestial bodies. In fact, here is the text:

http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-princip...

I started reading PG's writings in 2001 on the advice of my computer science teacher in high school. That was pre-ycombinator. I read his stuff because it was really interesting and spoke to me (while it doesn't have the same valence it once did for me, at the time I really loved his article on nerds).

It has been quite the ride to see this random dude whose work I started reading become a global juggernaut.

I was doing some research into the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (would ban underground nuclear tests, US has been voluntarily complying since the 90s but Republican Senators have refused to ratify) the other day. As I was researching, I stumbled upon an old Heritage Foundation position on the treaty. I knew of their reputation so I began reading with skepticism.

The author of the position piece made a number of very reasonable criticisms. He said that, for instance, while the treaty text bans "explosive" tests, and this is understood in some quarters to mean zero yield, it doesn't say that explicitly. He made two other sensible points that were at about the same order of magnitude maybe one more and one or two very hawkish points.

While I am not a diplomat or other professional in the field, I thought, hey some of these make a lot of sense, maybe they should workshop the treaty and fix these few points. I'm sure most countries would go along with a few amendments even if they've already signed it if they can get the US to say yes.

Instead he wholesale rejected the treaty and recommended that we signal total withdrawal and declare that we will no longer voluntarily comply with its terms. So essentially, he took a few reasonable points and then used them to support an extreme position.

I laughed and said aloud, "That's the Heritage Foundation that I know!"

http://www.heritage.org/arms-control/report/us-should-reject...