large elections would not properly represent the state either. Each area geographically has different needs and hence why representatives are supposed to be from different areas.
Why should geography trump other types of groups. I would venture to say that the people from New York City and San Francisco have more in common than the people from New York City and rural New York. If representatives were elected at large then the rural voters could clump together to get their representative elected just the same as the Libertarians, Asians, Gays, etc... could clump together to get their representative elected. Geography made sense at one time when travelling across the state was difficult but now there are more things that bind people together and define differences than just geography. You couldn't do a winner takes all voting but some sort of voting at large with runoff could get a higher percentage of people with their first choice representing them.
I agree. Something like this would be much preferred. The problem with districts is that even if you get rid of gerrymandering, if every district is an equal split 70% one party and 30% the other party then that second party never gets any representation. In some ways, slight gerrymandering is actually preferred over perfectly equal districts but something like all candidates voted for statewide and take the top N with the most votes would better represent the minority parties.
It's not going to be exactly equal but you'd expect a State with 70% of the population as registered Democrats compared to 30% Republicans to roughly have a 7:3 (or 6:4, even 5:5) mix of elected Congress-people.
No, I would not expect that at all. If political affiliation was equally distributed across the state, then with 70% democrats, you would expect every district to go democrat every time. But because we know that democrats tend to clump in cities and districts are divided by population not area, I would expect democrats to win most of the small area districts and republicans to win most of the large area districts. In some ways slight gerrymandering can actually give better representation for everyone so that the 30% minority actually gets a representative. Another way to accomplish this would be to have all representatives elected at large and the top N candidates with the most votes get a seat. Ideally this would probably work best with some form of ranked voting system so that if the top person gets more votes than they need, those extra votes trickle down to the next candidate.
And why do parents need help in cutting their own childrens' phone usage?
What happened to the good old "Turn the damned phone off"....or even better..."Give me that phone".
No need for Apple to get involved there.
Hell, why would parents buy children (less than teens at least) a phone in the first place?
The issue I'm facing as a parent is that a phone/tablet is a multifunction device. They need it for safety to call, they need it to do their homework, they want it for socializing, and they use it for entertainment. Because there are no controls on it for time limits, etc... the only option is the all/nothing that you talk about. I routinely just take their electronics away and/or only let them use them at the table for homework but it would be much easier if there were controls to say allow unlimited use of wikipedia and 10 hours a week for facebook or video games. Then they could see how much time they are using and manage it responsibly without me having to police it constantly.
That said, I'm not sure how Apple could address that—Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc., sure, but not Apple. The problem isn't the hardware, and thus can't realistically be solved by the hardware, I don't think.
No, not hardware but IOS software would help greatly. Even with MDM, apple phones are almost impossible for third party developers to develop parental controls. Even on android, they have to exploit accessibility options to get something halfway usable but IOS has everything sandboxed so it's practically impossible for a parental app to influence another app. Most parental apps on IOS end up using MDM plus VPN to get a very weak solution.
What apple could do is either develop or create hooks for third party developers to develop software that allows a parent to put reasonable restrictions on a device for instance no more than 20 hours per week of phone use or no more than 2 hours per day of video games.
I'll see your fear-mongering and raise you Fake News.
Seriously though, the total power usage for BTC is based on some rather sketchy numbers and still represents a minuscule fraction of the worldwide power usage. More is wasted on lighting streets with no people on them.
The total power usage might be a rough estimate but the ROI is fairly easy to calculate based on the cost of electricity and the difficulty level. It's mostly a break even proposition based on electricity usage so if the price of a bitcoin goes to $1M, then it stands to reason that you could burn thru around $900k of electricity and still make a positive ROI. Bitcoin mining is really a form of arbitrage between the cost of electricity and the price of a bitcoin. If the cost of a bitcoin increases and stays there then the number on miners and the difficulty level will increase until it is once again a break even trade of electricity for bitcoin.
Bitcoin would only consume a nuclear power plant of energy if humans put a nuclear power plant's worth of energy into mining. If instead humanity puts it 5V @ 0.001W of power, the difficulty will adjust and that will be the consumption. ROI will ultimately drive the amount of compute power dedicated to Bitcoin.
But ROI is directly linked to the bitcoin price so if bitcoin goes up by another factor of 10 or more like some people believe then it will be profitable to have entire nuclear power plant of energy. At the $500k -$1M point, it becomes profitable to use all the energy of the USA to mine bitcoin assuming electricity prices stayed the same. As we can't realistically double our electricity use that easily, if bitcoin continues to skyrocket then the price of electricity would increase greatly.
Same here. We've used a Roku for years. It just works. SlingTV supports it, too, adding a range of live cable channels (CNN, FS1, FS2, NBCSN, etc.).
I haven't been impressed with live TV. I haven't tried Sling but I tried directv now and it was completely unusable on the Roku. Not sure if a different service or a different device would be better or not.
Chromecast is great if all you want to do is stream from a PC or phone but is fairly limited. It is basically a dumb device.
Roku on the other hand just works. It supports every major platform, is content provider neutral and you can even create your own channels. It is easy enough for kids or the technically challenged, and you don't need a separate device to control it.
$20 likely wouldn't cover all that on an ongoing basis but as the employees are already on the payroll, the building is already there, etc..
You seem to be assuming that the employees would be doing nothing instead of replacing batteries. If replacing batteries takes them away from other necessary functions, Apple has to hire additional people. If they have to hire too many additional people, they run out of room and have to pay more for the space.
No, I'm assuming that $20 mostly covers the labor. Even if they get a mad influx and have to hire a few temps and set up card tables to do it, it should mostly cover the labor. They likely wouldn't expand their space for a temporary extra busy time. Apple is used to temporary surges when they release a new phone, etc. so should already have a plan in place to handle surges.
The whole idea of filter failure reminds me of what is happening in people with autism/aspergers and also supposedly wild animals. The human brain has been designed to filter out the unimportant and focus on the important. It's the reason that most non-autistic people after a short amount of time will stop noticing a ticking clock in the background. I think the problem with technology today is just like we have figured out how to synthesize stuff like sugar and drugs that directly bypass the brain's controls, we are doing the same with media. We are basically overloading our brains with tons of stimulus that our primitive brains can't filter properly into important and not important. In a small community, knowing that there is a murderer out killing people is likely very important knowledge. Knowing that some crazy killed someone halfway around the world is probably not important to your overall health but your brain doesn't know that. Even though your higher level conscience can usually differentiate between what is real and what is not real, it's not 100%. Your heartrate still increases while watching a horror movie because at some level your brain still thinks its real. Add to that that companies actually go out of their way to make their products more addicting and you have a disaster on your hand.
It's not even always about upselling needed features. Having useless features on the higher end models is a form of price discrimination. You are always going to have a certain group of people that will buy the highest model because they can afford it. By having those useless features, you can get more money from those people while still be able to sell the normal model to more price sensitive people. It's the same reason that you see "limited edition" models of certain products for $50 more where literally the only difference is the color.
What, you mean you don't value eyesight at approximately 17 years of median income?
There better be a guarantee with that if I'm paying for that out of my own pocket. But as there are likely quite a few blind people on disability, let's look at that instead. Disability probably pays out about half of the median income so we are now up to 34 years. If we are talking a person who is currently 40, then even if you can cure them, the break even point is age 64 where they then presumably can retire at age 65 so from an actuary standpoint, there is no incentive to cure them at that point as the cost to cure them and the cost to not cure them is basically a wash for a 40 year old and that's assuming they don't die early. From a quality of life standpoint, the person being cured is better off but from a medicaid/medicare/insurance standpoint there is really no advantage to spend 34 years of income to cure someone who might not even live for another 34 years.
That's not how antibiotics work. Antibiotics merely make bacteria vulnerable to your auto-immune response which otherwise is unable to fight it off.
Antibiotics are like a pesticide. They will kill bacteria in a petri dish even without an immune system present. Yes, your body is still trying to kill them on their own so they are likely fighting side by side but antibiotics still work even in people with completely compromised immune systems.
Surgery used to be VERY risky before antibiotics due to secondary infection. It doesn't matter how strong your auto-immune system is, if you get a bacterial infection you're not going to get over it on your own.
Yes, surgery used to be risky because your immune system SOMETIMES couldn't fight off the infection on it's own but plenty of people back then and today have no problem getting over bacterial infections on their own. You are literally fighting off bacterial infections every day and in general your body does this just fine without antibiotics. Most people take antibiotics not because they can't fight the infection off themselves but because having your immune system working in tandem with antibiotics speeds up recovery. I once was in a place where I didn't have access to antibiotics and I got a very nasty staph infection. I generally would have went straight to the doctor and got antibiotics. Instead, I drained and cleaned it daily and although I felt like I was going to die and recovery took longer than usual, I recovered just fine. It's also been shown that antibiotics not only create super bugs, it also makes an individual's immune system lazy so that your immune system is not as good at fighting off infections on its own. Most people would be much better off letting their own immune system take care of it first. The recovery might take a little longer but your immune system is more than capable of killing bacteria and making you 100% well on its own 99% of the time. It's only in rare cases where your body gets overwhelmed that you absolutely need antibiotics. There are plenty of people who survive to adulthood without having once taken antibiotics.
You are correct. At $29 they will take a loss on the battery replacements.
So you have access to validated internal cost detail for a company who buys this specific component in massive bulk?
My guess is it isn't as much as a loss as it is a wash. The part+shipping is probably only about $9. That leaves $20 for labor, building costs, and accidental breakage. $20 likely wouldn't cover all that on an ongoing basis but as the employees are already on the payroll, the building is already there, etc... then it should mostly let them break even while helping with the Public Relations. Throw in a few upsells while people are in the store and they might even come out a little ahead if you only look at parts+labor.
As a side note, I personally would love for this to blow up so badly that companies start having user replaceable batteries again but Apple has instead decided that thinner is better even when that thinness is a determent to features like user replaceable batteries and longer battery life.
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot.
The president neither runs nor sets the prices for the USPS. He does though have a giant soapbox that he can use. Complaining about the prices charged and requesting congress to help him change them is probably an appropriate job for the president if the president really believes this to be true.
Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner?
Even though the president doesn't run the USPS, the USPS is owned and managed by the USA government. The USPS is not private.
If the penalty for dangerous driving that could result in death is the same as for dangerous driving that does result in death (the grandparent's premise), then the penalty will be the same and if you do kill the person and drive off then you're less likely to be caught.
Most people are not going to be amoral and intentionally kill someone to avoid punishment. And I didn't say that a person should necessarily be charged for murder for driving drunk but that we should decide what the appropriate punishment is for driving drunk regardless of whether someone died or not. If the objective is deterrent then we are better off having harsher penalties for driving drunk than severe penalties for killing someone while drunk. Noone ever gets in the car drunk expecting to kill someone and even the death penalty for a rare event like that won't be much of a deterrent. It has been shown that the odds of being caught is a bigger deterrent than the severity of punishment so we would be better off giving everyone who drives drunk a mandatory 6 months in prison than to give out harsher penalties to someone who gets unlucky and also kills someone.
Why should it be treated differently? If I shoot someone in the chest why should my punishment be different based on whether they die or not? Likewise, if I hit and kill someone while drunk, why should my punishment be different than hitting someone and them not dying or driving down the sidewalk drunk and miraculously not hitting anyone? The punishment should be based on the action. If driving plastered is not a felony then being unlucky and accidentally killing someone while plastered shouldn't be either. The number of passengers and their survival rates shouldn't affect your punishment.
That 242 million figure is way low. The value of cryptocurrencies currently sits at around 400 billion. Just the value of the servers and data centers mining cryptocurrencies likely exceeds the $242 million as does the daily trading volume of bitcoin.
If the USPS raised rates because it was selling below cost and Amazon raised their price because they were shipping below cost then this is how it is supposed to work. Trump is right that the USPS shouldn't be subsidizing Amazon. But what would likely actually happen is that Amazon would switch to other carriers and/or increase the amount they deliver directly and the USPS would likely just lose that business completely.
Yet liberal and conservative parties in most countries tend to agree largely on financial and economic matters. It's in social matters where they differ.
Not at all. Especially in the USA. In the USA, conservatives tend to be more in favor of a smaller government. The USA is weird in that many conservatives have no problem having large spending on the military but if you exclude the military, most conservatives tend to favor cutting funding across the board.
I went to walmart customer service to get a 100 dollar bill for a Christmas present. The cashier pulled out a stack of probably 100 of them. I was amazed that they had that much money in a single register in a fairly insecure location.
Liberal and conservative today are mostly used for fiscal and social. Fiscally conservative is the opposite of fiscally liberal. Likewise, socially conservative is the opposite of socially liberal. Conservative and progressive are on a different axis.
I make half of what you make and am single with 3 kids. I live in a 6000sqft house on 4 acres and have more money than I can spend. If you are barely making it on 178k/year then you are doing something wrong.
If you look at things like square footage of homes, access to electricity, indoor plumbing, number of outfits, number of luxuries, amount of disposable income, etc.. then almost everyone I know is doing better than their parents were 50 years ago. Most people blow a ton money on stuff today that either wasn't available or people wouldn't dream of spending money on 50 years ago like $4 coffees and bottle water. Also vacations have gotten way more expensive and are no longer just driving to the nearby state park for the weekend.
Slashdot Mirror
large elections would not properly represent the state either. Each area geographically has different needs and hence why representatives are supposed to be from different areas.
Why should geography trump other types of groups. I would venture to say that the people from New York City and San Francisco have more in common
than the people from New York City and rural New York. If representatives were elected at large then the rural voters could clump together to get their
representative elected just the same as the Libertarians, Asians, Gays, etc... could clump together to get their representative elected. Geography made
sense at one time when travelling across the state was difficult but now there are more things that bind people together and define differences than just
geography. You couldn't do a winner takes all voting but some sort of voting at large with runoff could get a higher percentage of people with their first choice
representing them.
I prefer multimember districts with cumulative voting like they had in Illinois up to 1982.
I agree. Something like this would be much preferred. The problem with districts is that even if you get rid of gerrymandering, if every district is an equal split 70% one party and 30% the other party then that second party never gets any representation. In some ways, slight gerrymandering is actually preferred over perfectly equal districts but something like all candidates voted for statewide and take the top N with the most votes would better represent the minority parties.
>
It's not going to be exactly equal but you'd expect a State with 70% of the population as registered Democrats compared to 30% Republicans to roughly have a 7:3 (or 6:4, even 5:5) mix of elected Congress-people.
No, I would not expect that at all. If political affiliation was equally distributed across the state, then with 70% democrats, you would expect every district to go democrat every time. But because we know that democrats tend to clump in cities and districts are divided by population not area, I would expect democrats to win most of the small area districts and republicans to win most of the large area districts. In some ways slight gerrymandering can actually give better representation for everyone so that the 30% minority actually gets a representative. Another way to accomplish this would be to have all representatives elected at large and the top N candidates with the most votes get a seat. Ideally this would probably work best with some form of ranked voting system so that if the top person gets more votes than they need, those extra votes trickle down to the next candidate.
And why do parents need help in cutting their own childrens' phone usage?
What happened to the good old "Turn the damned phone off"....or even better..."Give me that phone".
No need for Apple to get involved there.
Hell, why would parents buy children (less than teens at least) a phone in the first place?
The issue I'm facing as a parent is that a phone/tablet is a multifunction device. They need it for safety to call, they need it to do their homework, they want it for socializing, and they use it for entertainment. Because there are no controls on it for time limits, etc... the only option is the all/nothing that you talk about. I routinely just take their electronics away and/or only let them use them at the table for homework but it would be much easier if there were controls to say allow unlimited use of wikipedia and 10 hours a week for facebook or video games. Then they could see how much time they are using and manage it responsibly without me having to police it constantly.
That said, I'm not sure how Apple could address that—Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc., sure, but not Apple. The problem isn't the hardware, and thus can't realistically be solved by the hardware, I don't think.
No, not hardware but IOS software would help greatly. Even with MDM, apple phones are almost impossible for third party developers to develop parental controls. Even on android, they have to exploit accessibility options to get something halfway usable but IOS has everything sandboxed so it's practically impossible for a parental app to influence another app. Most parental apps on IOS end up using MDM plus VPN to get a very weak solution.
What apple could do is either develop or create hooks for third party developers to develop software that allows a parent to put reasonable restrictions on a device for instance no more than 20 hours per week of phone use or no more than 2 hours per day of video games.
I'll see your fear-mongering and raise you Fake News.
Seriously though, the total power usage for BTC is based on some rather sketchy numbers and still represents a minuscule fraction of the worldwide power usage. More is wasted on lighting streets with no people on them.
The total power usage might be a rough estimate but the ROI is fairly easy to calculate based on the cost of electricity and the difficulty level. It's mostly a break even proposition based on electricity usage so if the price of a bitcoin goes to $1M, then it stands to reason that you could burn thru around $900k of electricity and still make a positive ROI. Bitcoin mining is really a form of arbitrage between the cost of electricity and the price of a bitcoin. If the cost of a bitcoin increases and stays there then the number on miners and the difficulty level will increase until it is once again a break even trade of electricity for bitcoin.
Bitcoin would only consume a nuclear power plant of energy if humans put a nuclear power plant's worth of energy into mining. If instead humanity puts it 5V @ 0.001W of power, the difficulty will adjust and that will be the consumption. ROI will ultimately drive the amount of compute power dedicated to Bitcoin.
But ROI is directly linked to the bitcoin price so if bitcoin goes up by another factor of 10 or more like some people believe then it will be profitable to have entire nuclear power plant of energy. At the $500k -$1M point, it becomes profitable to use all the energy of the USA to mine bitcoin assuming electricity prices stayed the same. As we can't realistically double our electricity use that easily, if bitcoin continues to skyrocket then the price of electricity would increase greatly.
Same here. We've used a Roku for years. It just works. SlingTV supports it, too, adding a range of live cable channels (CNN, FS1, FS2, NBCSN, etc.).
I haven't been impressed with live TV. I haven't tried Sling but I tried directv now and it was completely unusable on the Roku. Not sure if a different service or a different device would be better or not.
Chromecast is great if all you want to do is stream from a PC or phone but is fairly limited. It is basically a dumb device.
Roku on the other hand just works. It supports every major platform, is content provider neutral and you can even create your own channels. It is easy enough for kids or the technically challenged, and you don't need a separate device to control it.
You seem to be assuming that the employees would be doing nothing instead of replacing batteries. If replacing batteries takes them away from other necessary functions, Apple has to hire additional people. If they have to hire too many additional people, they run out of room and have to pay more for the space.
No, I'm assuming that $20 mostly covers the labor. Even if they get a mad influx and have to hire a few temps and set up card tables to do it, it should mostly cover the labor. They likely wouldn't expand their space for a temporary extra busy time. Apple is used to temporary surges when they release a new phone, etc. so should already have a plan in place to handle surges.
The whole idea of filter failure reminds me of what is happening in people with autism/aspergers and also supposedly wild animals. The human brain has been designed to filter out the unimportant and focus on the important. It's the reason that most non-autistic people after a short amount of time will stop noticing a ticking clock in the background. I think the problem with technology today is just like we have figured out how to synthesize stuff like sugar and drugs that directly bypass the brain's controls, we are doing the same with media. We are basically overloading our brains with tons of stimulus that our primitive brains can't filter properly into important and not important. In a small community, knowing that there is a murderer out killing people is likely very important knowledge. Knowing that some crazy killed someone halfway around the world is probably not important to your overall health but your brain doesn't know that. Even though your higher level conscience can usually differentiate between what is real and what is not real, it's not 100%. Your heartrate still increases while watching a horror movie because at some level your brain still thinks its real. Add to that that companies actually go out of their way to make their products more addicting and you have a disaster on your hand.
It's not even always about upselling needed features. Having useless features on the higher end models is a form of price discrimination. You are always going to have a certain group of people that will buy the highest model because they can afford it. By having those useless features, you can get more money from those people while still be able to sell the normal model to more price sensitive people. It's the same reason that you see "limited edition" models of certain products for $50 more where literally the only difference is the color.
Oops. Actually, the breakeven is 74 not 64. Even worse than what I wrote.
What, you mean you don't value eyesight at approximately 17 years of median income?
There better be a guarantee with that if I'm paying for that out of my own pocket. But as there are likely quite a few blind people on disability, let's look at that instead. Disability probably pays out about half of the median income so we are now up to 34 years. If we are talking a person who is currently 40, then even if you can cure them, the break even point is age 64 where they then presumably can retire at age 65 so from an actuary standpoint, there is no incentive to cure them at that point as the cost to cure them and the cost to not cure them is basically a wash for a 40 year old and that's assuming they don't die early. From a quality of life standpoint, the person being cured is better off but from a medicaid/medicare/insurance standpoint there is really no advantage to spend 34 years of income to cure someone who might not even live for another 34 years.
That's not how antibiotics work. Antibiotics merely make bacteria vulnerable to your auto-immune response which otherwise is unable to fight it off.
Antibiotics are like a pesticide. They will kill bacteria in a petri dish even without an immune system present. Yes, your body is still trying to kill them on their own so they are likely fighting side by side but antibiotics still work even in people with completely compromised immune systems.
Surgery used to be VERY risky before antibiotics due to secondary infection. It doesn't matter how strong your auto-immune system is, if you get a bacterial infection you're not going to get over it on your own.
Yes, surgery used to be risky because your immune system SOMETIMES couldn't fight off the infection on it's own but plenty of people back then and today have no problem getting over bacterial infections on their own. You are literally fighting off bacterial infections every day and in general your body does this just fine without antibiotics. Most people take antibiotics not because they can't fight the infection off themselves but because having your immune system working in tandem with antibiotics speeds up recovery. I once was in a place where I didn't have access to antibiotics and I got a very nasty staph infection. I generally would have went straight to the doctor and got antibiotics. Instead, I drained and cleaned it daily and although I felt like I was going to die and recovery took longer than usual, I recovered just fine. It's also been shown that antibiotics not only create super bugs, it also makes an individual's immune system lazy so that your immune system is not as good at fighting off infections on its own. Most people would be much better off letting their own immune system take care of it first. The recovery might take a little longer but your immune system is more than capable of killing bacteria and making you 100% well on its own 99% of the time. It's only in rare cases where your body gets overwhelmed that you absolutely need antibiotics. There are plenty of people who survive to adulthood without having once taken antibiotics.
You are correct. At $29 they will take a loss on the battery replacements.
So you have access to validated internal cost detail for a company who buys this specific component in massive bulk?
My guess is it isn't as much as a loss as it is a wash. The part+shipping is probably only about $9. That leaves $20 for labor, building costs, and accidental breakage. $20 likely wouldn't cover all that on an ongoing basis but as the employees are already on the payroll, the building is already there, etc... then it should mostly let them break even while helping with the Public Relations. Throw in a few upsells while people are in the store and they might even come out a little ahead if you only look at parts+labor.
As a side note, I personally would love for this to blow up so badly that companies start having user replaceable batteries again but Apple has instead decided that thinner is better even when that thinness is a determent to features like user replaceable batteries and longer battery life.
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot.
The president neither runs nor sets the prices for the USPS. He does though have a giant soapbox that he can use. Complaining about the prices charged and requesting congress to help him change them is probably an appropriate job for the president if the president really believes this to be true.
Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner?
Even though the president doesn't run the USPS, the USPS is owned and managed by the USA government. The USPS is not private.
If the penalty for dangerous driving that could result in death is the same as for dangerous driving that does result in death (the grandparent's premise), then the penalty will be the same and if you do kill the person and drive off then you're less likely to be caught.
Most people are not going to be amoral and intentionally kill someone to avoid punishment. And I didn't say that a person should necessarily be charged for murder for driving drunk but that we should decide what the appropriate punishment is for driving drunk regardless of whether someone died or not. If the objective is deterrent then we are better off having harsher penalties for driving drunk than severe penalties for killing someone while drunk. Noone ever gets in the car drunk expecting to kill someone and even the death penalty for a rare event like that won't be much of a deterrent. It has been shown that the odds of being caught is a bigger deterrent than the severity of punishment so we would be better off giving everyone who drives drunk a mandatory 6 months in prison than to give out harsher penalties to someone who gets unlucky and also kills someone.
Why should it be treated differently? If I shoot someone in the chest why should my punishment be different based on whether they die or not? Likewise, if I hit and kill someone while drunk, why should my punishment be different than hitting someone and them not dying or driving down the sidewalk drunk and miraculously not hitting anyone? The punishment should be based on the action. If driving plastered is not a felony then being unlucky and accidentally killing someone while plastered shouldn't be either. The number of passengers and their survival rates shouldn't affect your punishment.
That 242 million figure is way low. The value of cryptocurrencies currently sits at around 400 billion. Just the value of the servers and data centers mining cryptocurrencies likely exceeds the $242 million as does the daily trading volume of bitcoin.
If the USPS raised rates because it was selling below cost and Amazon raised their price because they were shipping below cost then this is how it is supposed to work. Trump is right that the USPS shouldn't be subsidizing Amazon. But what would likely actually happen is that Amazon would switch to other carriers and/or increase the amount they deliver directly and the USPS would likely just lose that business completely.
Yet liberal and conservative parties in most countries tend to agree largely on financial and economic matters. It's in social matters where they differ.
Not at all. Especially in the USA. In the USA, conservatives tend to be more in favor of a smaller government. The USA is weird in that many conservatives have no problem having large spending on the military but if you exclude the military, most conservatives tend to favor cutting funding across the board.
I went to walmart customer service to get a 100 dollar bill for a Christmas present. The cashier pulled out a stack of probably 100 of them. I was amazed that they had that much money in a single register in a fairly insecure location.
Liberal and conservative today are mostly used for fiscal and social. Fiscally conservative is the opposite of fiscally liberal. Likewise, socially conservative is the opposite of socially liberal. Conservative and progressive are on a different axis.
I make half of what you make and am single with 3 kids. I live in a 6000sqft house on 4 acres and have more money than I can spend. If you are barely making it on 178k/year then you are doing something wrong.
If you look at things like square footage of homes, access to electricity, indoor plumbing, number of outfits, number of luxuries, amount of disposable income, etc.. then almost everyone I know is doing better than their parents were 50 years ago. Most people blow a ton money on stuff today that either wasn't available or people wouldn't dream of spending money on 50 years ago like $4 coffees and bottle water. Also vacations have gotten way more expensive and are no longer just driving to the nearby state park for the weekend.