Nothing in that link was demonstrated as incorrect. In fact, the specific predictions (e.g. accelerated ice melting in Antarctica) have come true. Now, he said we had to act already to avoid a feedback loop, but that' not been resolved.
Still waiting for those 50 million climate refugees predicted by the UN
That article explains what's happened... those islands in the South Pacific have been expanding by adding mass, and staying above the sea level rise that way. That said, I would say that the hundreds of thousands of people who left Puerto Rico qualify. I'd add to that that refugees, in general, are in the news. The right-wing nationalist response has also been in the news (and, in Italy, left-wing.)
Or how are things on the West Side of Manhattan these days ?
Are you not capable of understanding it was a somewhat hyperbolic quote?
Then again snow is supposed to be a thing of the past as well
And the number of days with snow in most of the UK has halved since that article was written. Again, you're looking at the exact (and possibly hyperbolic) statement, and not the trend line.
As I said, at least half a billion. Other estimates run into the multiple billions, like 4 or so. Billions is the correct unit.
Further, there is a non-linear aspect to money (as economists have recognized for decades). Half a billion is no where close to "just as far away form a full billion as from zero".
He eventually walked away with (far fewer than he invested in any of them) millions. Because his creditors let him have a face-saving deal to license his name. But that was as a result of his bankruptcy negotiations where he lost his airline, yacht, and hotels in the deal. Yeah, he lost, and lost big.
Given that different people who go and interview people in small towns come back with different answers, what's yours?
your average people in small towns
I don't know what this phrase means. Do you mean if I hang around in small towns, most people I meet there (the average small-towner?) Do you mean if I hang around in small towns, but don't talk to anyone above-average intelligence-wise? Do you mean if I find Americans who fall in the average wage/intelligence/etc. criteria and only talk to ones living in small towns?
"the sky is falling so do as I say" or "the sky is not falling so guard your liberty jealously" I'll pick the latter every single time.
So, you're one of these people who says "I either win the lottery or I don't so 50/50"? Cause you don't seem to understand that different events have different probabilities.
The Democrats didn't take enough Senate seats for impeachment to happen, unfortunately.
That's not a surprise. If the Democrats had won every Senate seat up for election, they wouldn't have won enough seats to impeach. Keep in mind only 1/3 of the Senate runs at a time.
Don't forget, they won the majority of the seats up for grabs. They may have (net) lost two* seats, which were carried into office by Obama's second win.
First, most products are not priced based on cost, but on the market power of the sellers. Most goods compete on non-price attributes.
Second, taxes aren't just taxes. Tariffs raise the costs of goods sold, which means that they increase the costs to sell products. Taxes on profits don't. Hell, EBITDA is the common gold standard for how good an investment is, and it specifically excludes (income) taxes. It's the "T". But it doesn't exclude tariffs.
It's more true that politicans disagree on all those points even within a political party. And people try to say "All X believe Y" from a small sample. And then other people say "All X believe not Y" from a similarly small, nonoverlapping sample.
Oh, politicians sometimes move around what they care about, but they tend to be pretty consistent. With the nuance that surrounds debt. Politicians seem to consistently believe debt is okay for either priorities, but not for not-their-priorities. Which is a fancy way of saying they are complaining about the high cost of programs they don't like.
There was some changing of minds about the war in Iraq, but that's not so much flip-flopping as people having made a mistake and owning up to it.
Either that, or just secure a small million dollar loan from your daddy.
Please stop repeating this lie. I know, it sounds like it's making fun of Trump, but it's actually buying into his hype. His trust fund was paying him over $250k a year (inflation adjusted) every year since he was born. His dad bought him his first apartment complex. His dad loaned him (illegal) $3 million (not inflation adjusted) dollars when his casino was going bust. He inherited somewhere north of a half a billion dollars (and some estimates go to multiples of it).
To end up where Trump is, even starting with a million dollar loan, is impressive. To end up where Trump is with where he actually started is about as impressive as... well, inheriting money and living off the interest.
That's insane. There's a price that everyone is willing (and able) to pay for an item. You may be able to afford a $1000 phone, but not a $1100 one. And, knowing that price point, is the start of financial literacy. Your statement is the start of going to the poorhouse/overpaying at auctions.
I agree in general with what you're saying, but this conversation isn't about teaching kids to make choices and live within their means. This is about the hot "it" toy for Christmas being advertised to them for months, and then their parents being unable to get it except on the scalper's resale market.
Nonsense, people grow into restraint. A ten year old just doesn't have it yet. Far better to wait until your kids can be taught how/when to use conspicuous consumption. The first half of OP's statement, it should be illegal to advertise to kids, is spot on.
Chuck Schumer likes HFTers, and doesn't like scalpers. He thinks issues like this will win him elections because he thinks the average US family makes low six figures and issues like this are what bothers them.
This is as tone-deaf as "don't want to be taken advantage of by FB, don't have an account." Because people don't live in a vacuum, kids are cruel, and making them pariahs cause they don't have (socially required thing) so you feel better is a shitty option.
Ohio isn't taking bitcoin directly, they just have a vendor who will take [they don't care how much bitcoin] and gives them [$ you owe[. Your taxes are denominated in dollars.
Non-US groups are pretty hard to stop when it comes to digital goods, or tickets. For physical goods, CBP has a pretty good track record at stopping them.
It's assumed that most people in the US over late-20's have a FB account, and under that a Snap account. There are a lot of people who have such an account and publish nothing, and a lot more who have an account and publish everything.
It's a response to someone saying that the purpose is to link people to bitcoin wallets to enforce tax laws. These are usually put forth by someone who thinks that is a bad thing. That's where it came from. According to the poster I was responding to, he thought it was just the government being clever. So, it may have come from "tone over text" issues.
They already generate scenes (and dialog) around advertisers. Hell, Seinfeld had that Junior Mints episode for an advertiser (Junior Mints). And that wasn't new even then. To say nothing of the "Camel News Caravan" sponsored by the cigarette company in the fucking 1940s. Hmmm, that was also on NBC.
I thought the appeal behind bitcoin was supposed to be it's anonymous (really pseudonymous). I thought gold was supposed to be the "I don't trust fiat currency" asset.
Oh, you day traded crypto and made $10k in 2017, well, we'd like our cut of the shorterm capital gains.
Oh no, people have to pay the taxes they owe. I'm so sorry for you.
Fuck assholes who think "it happened on a computer, so it's totally different". Fuck the people who think that means they can patent 100 year old things done on a computer. Fuck the companies that think they can ignore safety regulations because they're booking hotel rooms on a computer. Fuck assholes who say "I'd don't owe taxes because I made my money on a computer"
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing in that link was demonstrated as incorrect. In fact, the specific predictions (e.g. accelerated ice melting in Antarctica) have come true. Now, he said we had to act already to avoid a feedback loop, but that' not been resolved.
That article explains what's happened... those islands in the South Pacific have been expanding by adding mass, and staying above the sea level rise that way. That said, I would say that the hundreds of thousands of people who left Puerto Rico qualify. I'd add to that that refugees, in general, are in the news. The right-wing nationalist response has also been in the news (and, in Italy, left-wing.)
Are you not capable of understanding it was a somewhat hyperbolic quote?
And the number of days with snow in most of the UK has halved since that article was written. Again, you're looking at the exact (and possibly hyperbolic) statement, and not the trend line.
As I said, at least half a billion. Other estimates run into the multiple billions, like 4 or so. Billions is the correct unit.
Further, there is a non-linear aspect to money (as economists have recognized for decades). Half a billion is no where close to "just as far away form a full billion as from zero".
He eventually walked away with (far fewer than he invested in any of them) millions. Because his creditors let him have a face-saving deal to license his name. But that was as a result of his bankruptcy negotiations where he lost his airline, yacht, and hotels in the deal. Yeah, he lost, and lost big.
Nonsense, Trump lost money owning three casinos.
That's not a surprise. If the Democrats had won every Senate seat up for election, they wouldn't have won enough seats to impeach. Keep in mind only 1/3 of the Senate runs at a time.
Don't forget, they won the majority of the seats up for grabs. They may have (net) lost two* seats, which were carried into office by Obama's second win.
*And maybe a third, there's a runoff!
First, most products are not priced based on cost, but on the market power of the sellers. Most goods compete on non-price attributes.
Second, taxes aren't just taxes. Tariffs raise the costs of goods sold, which means that they increase the costs to sell products. Taxes on profits don't. Hell, EBITDA is the common gold standard for how good an investment is, and it specifically excludes (income) taxes. It's the "T". But it doesn't exclude tariffs.
It's more true that politicans disagree on all those points even within a political party. And people try to say "All X believe Y" from a small sample. And then other people say "All X believe not Y" from a similarly small, nonoverlapping sample.
Oh, politicians sometimes move around what they care about, but they tend to be pretty consistent. With the nuance that surrounds debt. Politicians seem to consistently believe debt is okay for either priorities, but not for not-their-priorities. Which is a fancy way of saying they are complaining about the high cost of programs they don't like.
There was some changing of minds about the war in Iraq, but that's not so much flip-flopping as people having made a mistake and owning up to it.
Please stop repeating this lie. I know, it sounds like it's making fun of Trump, but it's actually buying into his hype. His trust fund was paying him over $250k a year (inflation adjusted) every year since he was born. His dad bought him his first apartment complex. His dad loaned him (illegal) $3 million (not inflation adjusted) dollars when his casino was going bust. He inherited somewhere north of a half a billion dollars (and some estimates go to multiples of it).
To end up where Trump is, even starting with a million dollar loan, is impressive. To end up where Trump is with where he actually started is about as impressive as... well, inheriting money and living off the interest.
That's insane. There's a price that everyone is willing (and able) to pay for an item. You may be able to afford a $1000 phone, but not a $1100 one. And, knowing that price point, is the start of financial literacy. Your statement is the start of going to the poorhouse/overpaying at auctions.
I agree in general with what you're saying, but this conversation isn't about teaching kids to make choices and live within their means. This is about the hot "it" toy for Christmas being advertised to them for months, and then their parents being unable to get it except on the scalper's resale market.
Nonsense, people grow into restraint. A ten year old just doesn't have it yet. Far better to wait until your kids can be taught how/when to use conspicuous consumption. The first half of OP's statement, it should be illegal to advertise to kids, is spot on.
Chuck Schumer likes HFTers, and doesn't like scalpers. He thinks issues like this will win him elections because he thinks the average US family makes low six figures and issues like this are what bothers them.
This is as tone-deaf as "don't want to be taken advantage of by FB, don't have an account." Because people don't live in a vacuum, kids are cruel, and making them pariahs cause they don't have (socially required thing) so you feel better is a shitty option.
Ohio isn't taking bitcoin directly, they just have a vendor who will take [they don't care how much bitcoin] and gives them [$ you owe[. Your taxes are denominated in dollars.
No, he said that manned missions to live on Mars were pointless. Which they are (at least with current tech.)
Non-US groups are pretty hard to stop when it comes to digital goods, or tickets. For physical goods, CBP has a pretty good track record at stopping them.
It's assumed that most people in the US over late-20's have a FB account, and under that a Snap account. There are a lot of people who have such an account and publish nothing, and a lot more who have an account and publish everything.
It's a response to someone saying that the purpose is to link people to bitcoin wallets to enforce tax laws. These are usually put forth by someone who thinks that is a bad thing. That's where it came from. According to the poster I was responding to, he thought it was just the government being clever. So, it may have come from "tone over text" issues.
Subtle product placement abounds. Every logo/recognizable product is paid for.
It's not anonymous, but people think it is. It is pseudonymous, but tying pseudoidentity to real identity isn't that hard.
They already generate scenes (and dialog) around advertisers. Hell, Seinfeld had that Junior Mints episode for an advertiser (Junior Mints). And that wasn't new even then. To say nothing of the "Camel News Caravan" sponsored by the cigarette company in the fucking 1940s. Hmmm, that was also on NBC.
I thought the appeal behind bitcoin was supposed to be it's anonymous (really pseudonymous). I thought gold was supposed to be the "I don't trust fiat currency" asset.
Oh no, people have to pay the taxes they owe. I'm so sorry for you.
Fuck assholes who think "it happened on a computer, so it's totally different". Fuck the people who think that means they can patent 100 year old things done on a computer. Fuck the companies that think they can ignore safety regulations because they're booking hotel rooms on a computer. Fuck assholes who say "I'd don't owe taxes because I made my money on a computer"