"No one was going to benefit from that arrangement except for Foxconn"
Well, aside from the ostensibly up to 13000 people paid an average of $53,000/year that the plant was talking about employing, Oh, and the local businesses that would benefit from nearly $700 million in the local spending that would generate downstream annually. And it wasn't really COSTING the state / taxpayers anything, as it was tax breaks on activity that wasn't happening today.
If the state offers me a tax break on any income I earn that far exceeds what I make now, I promise to hire up to 13,000 employees.
Of course, "up to 13,000 employees" includes 0 employees.
Remember that time you were upset Republicans pointed out how sickly and unstable Hillary was, because she kept falling over or shaking uncontrollably?
Stop assuming that someone who criticizes Trump is a die hard Hillary supporter.
Currently, based on the sizes of the minor planets we have found beyond Neptune, as well as our chance of finding objects, one can extrapolate to a good possibility that we are missing something that is planet sized.
If the mass of the Kuiper belt is far higher than expected, that makes it seem more likely that there is an undiscovered planet out there.
I know this study is specifically about the hypothetical "Planet Nine", used to explain the clustering of some Sednoids. And its alternative explanation for that clustering may be correct. But overall, it seems to suggest that there's a unknown mechanism for adding more mass to the far outer reaches of the solar system.
I don't think it's dementia. Paranoia certainly. Mild schizophrenia, he seems partially disconnected from reality, and narcissistic disorders are very likely. He's probably on the autism spectrum as shown by his rigid thinking and lack of empathy. I don't think he is suffering from dementia though.
While I'm not dismissing multiple explanations for Trump's behavior, please check out the times that Trump fails to properly carry out basic tasks.
A much more accurate statement that would actually be far closer to reality is that "educated women that have been properly propagandised against family structures and normative views on sex (in historic, global and evolutionary sense) have less children than less educated women who weren't propagandised and so end up being happy in the traditional female aristocrat role".
Which is why poor women in Europe have a lot less children than upper class women today. Upper class go to private schools, and have become fairly segregated from what would qualify as "approximately average person" in favour of being more interconnected with other elites globally. Which grounds them in more normative views on sex, and hence, having more children.
An alternative interpretation is that raising wealth inequality leads the precariat to reduce the number of children they are having, if they have the education to do so.
While the rich are, by definition, not the precariat, and thus don't face the same financial restrictions on having children.
That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying the objects motion is statistically unlike anything else in our part of the Milky Way. It's essentially stationary with respect to the rest of the galaxy. A large amount of energy would be needed to achieve that relative velocity. He also notes that it has several characteristics, including acceleration, that are similar to current solar sail technology. It's a statistical anomaly.
I wonder about parts of his hypothesis. For example, he says that based on our solar system, there should be so few intersteller objects that we should have never discovered Oumuamua.
But our solar system has been mostly stable and boring for billions of years needed for life to evolve to the point where humans appeared. We may be the exception, rather than the rule - just like while our sun is relatively stable and has a terrestrial planet with an atmosphere in the inhabitable zone, that appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Maybe most solar systems are far more chaotic than ours; ejecting much more into interstellar space.
When average life span was 72, somebody 60 years old had a pretty short investment horizon, so they'd have more than half their money in bonds. These days, even a 70 year old plans for 15 years out, so more stocks makes sense. If you invested for 20-30 years while working, you've got a million so significant drop one year would just mean you spend $30,000 of the principal that year and your kids only get $970,000 when you die. Oh well.
At a 4% withdrawal rate, even 100% stocks looks pretty safe. If we use historical simulations, and keep things inflation-adjusted, about only 1 out of 20 times would you run out of money in 30 years.
The FA may not talk about it, but most people are riding them on the sidewalk in San Diego. I would say about 3/4, but it probably varies by neighborhood. Some scooter riders use bike lanes and follow normal bike safety protocols around traffic, but less than 1 in 10 wears a helmet.
In my state, using a motorized vehicle in a bicycle lane is normally prohibited, and I've seen a 50cc scooter rider ticketed for it.
But I haven't seen an electric scooter rider ticketed yet.
We need border security for National Security. Obstructionist Democrats can be the one to thank.
If we need border security, why should we waste money on a campaign promise? There's multiple ways to smuggling people, goods, and money into and out of this country. A wall ties up funding - both for building, and for maintaining and patrolling it.
In some areas, a barrier does make sense - and we have a barrier already built along much of the southern border. Some of that barrier needs an upgrade. But the cost of building and maintaining such an improved barrier must be weighed against the need for security at other ports of entry. Else we're doing the equivalent of a homeowner building a strong front door to protect against intruders and then leaving a window open.
These devices may not be able to take pictures but they still measure speed. And the results are damning:
They detect a 30 % increase [fr] of rides above the speed limit. The lessons of all this are clear:
Part of the problem, at least in the US, is the idea that the success of a street or a road is measured by how many cars can travel on it (the road capacity).
Which sometimes makes sense - that's a great way to measure an interstate between two places.
But when it comes to streets and roads in close proximity to humans, it's a very incomplete metric. In my town, we have a road that goes between a few apartment buildings, condos, and single family dwellings. Over time, the city has widened it, added extra lanes, removed on-street parking to increase traffic flow, and even a center turn lane to prevent turning drivers from slowing people.
It's built rather well for cars. But as I said, the road travels through a dense residential area. The rule of thumb is that at 40 mph, 90% of people hit by cars die. At 30 mph, only 50% do. (At 20mph, about 10% of people die). So the road itself looks like its designed for 45mph. But a speed limit sign is relied on to drop the traffic down to 30mph for safety.
It's a bad design. A better solution would be to build the road to communicate to drivers that the speed limit is lowered - for example, a road diet to reduce the speed and have less lanes for pedestrians to cross, perhaps some sidewalk bump outs at bus stops, as well as adding back on-street parking to provide a buffer between homes and traffic. The result would be the sort of road that would feel unsafe to travel on at 45 mph. Speeds would be reduced. By the official traffic engineers' metric, the road would not be as good. But from a livability standpoint, it would be much better.
Doesn't that indicate the uncertainty interval (the shaded area) on that graph? So that there's only a 5% chance of the results falling out out that range?
I am not sure what they have hacked, but it is more complex than the summary suggests.
Could this be a C3 -> C4 pathway hack? Some plants rely on the C3 pathway to produce energy. Other plants rely on the C4 pathway. The C4 pathway is more efficient, and there's research to put the C4 pathway into C3 plants.
Monsanto/Bayer lost a major court case against them for roundup causing cancer in a groundskeeper. Now tons of new lawsuits are going up in light of that one. Ignore the warnings at your own risk.
And according to the law, the tomato is not a fruit. Biologically, the tomato is a fruit.
The law and science are two different things. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not.
Coolants aren't bad. Coolants that are also moderators are bad. A moderator in a nuclear reactor is the substance that slows down (reduces the energies of) neutrons and increases the change of a fission and improving the neutron economy. Making your coolant, which you increase to slow down the reactors, the same as the moderator, which you remove to slow down the reaction, makes managing the core difficult. That's why people want to use anything but water for a coolant including molten salts (both fluorides and chlorides), or molten metal.
Reactors such as BWR don't use coolant to manage the reaction. The coolant (AFAIK) has to be there to sustain the reaction, but control rods are used to control the reaction.
It also uses water as a coolant which is a bad idea we need to retire. A coolant that increases the intensity of the chain reaction is a really, really bad idea.
Care to explain this statement? Why is it a bad design to rely on having coolant to sustain a nuclear reaction?
And those that want the wall are fucking stupid. Audit the employers and fine them for 50k per illegal on the first two offenses, and then take their business license on the third offense.
I've mentioned a similar plan, but with all of the company's workers (and their families) gaining US residency.
US system is absolutely broken. He had to wait TWO WEEKS to get insurance to cover his prescription. We need to overhaul the entire system and add $32 Trillion to the Federal budget because he waited 2 whole weeks!
Two weeks and multiple phone calls by myself and my doctor. To get what is literally the textbook prescription for my ailment.
Now this isn't some major thing. But from a healthcare perspective, it is broken. Why should the standard treatment be denied?
From a capitalistic perspective, it makes perfect sense to deny a few people - for a big company, just the delay in payment may be worth it. More importantly, maybe some people will pay for it out of pocket or will drop off the insurance for other reasons.
The insurance company's job is to be profitable, and that is a goal that doesn't always align with getting the best treatment. The insurance company seeks to deny coverage, and if they do have to cover treatment, it's best to pay as little as possible. They'd prefer I'd never use medical services at all, and if I did, I should use as little as possible, be it that I recover quickly or die quickly. (Recover quickly is the best for them, since I'll keep paying my premiums, but dying quickly is cheaper than a slow, medically intensive death.)
I have lived under the British (UK) health care system and it Sucks! The reports of wait times for surgery, scans, procedures & treatment are much longer than in the USA. The overall Quality is much poorer than the USA.
I've done the US system, and I've run into a few issues.
The US system can be horrible, or it can be great. It depends on how much you are willing to pay. For example, the doctor prescribed the textbook prescription for an ailment. My insurance company denied it. I had to go back and forth with them, the doctor, and the doctor had to call them before it was covered.
If I could pay out of pocket, I would have gotten the prescription right away. As it was, it took about two weeks for the insurance company to okay the treatment.
We didn't "swindle" land from the Native Americans. We (occasionally) bought land from the First Immigrants (or Second, depending on how accurate that current scientific views vis a vis the various immigration waves to the New World are), or beat the crap out of them and took it.
Okay, so Europeans and later Western nations stole land instead of swindled it.
Re:And 30% of Americans blame this on... Global warming?
Probably you'd find a number like that. It is also very likely that very few, if any scientists, would blame the disappearance on global warming.
Which probably should indicate we should listen more to scientists instead of random Americans when it comes to figuring out cause and effect and making predictions.
We basically solved the retirement problem with the 401(k) system. Now you don't have to work for GM for 40 years to get a pension.
But often a company will require working there for a year to qualify for a 401(k) match, which will result in a hit to actual compensation for the first year, assuming you contribute to your max match amount.
Slashdot Mirror
If the state offers me a tax break on any income I earn that far exceeds what I make now, I promise to hire up to 13,000 employees.
Of course, "up to 13,000 employees" includes 0 employees.
Stop assuming that someone who criticizes Trump is a die hard Hillary supporter.
Currently, based on the sizes of the minor planets we have found beyond Neptune, as well as our chance of finding objects, one can extrapolate to a good possibility that we are missing something that is planet sized.
If the mass of the Kuiper belt is far higher than expected, that makes it seem more likely that there is an undiscovered planet out there.
I know this study is specifically about the hypothetical "Planet Nine", used to explain the clustering of some Sednoids. And its alternative explanation for that clustering may be correct. But overall, it seems to suggest that there's a unknown mechanism for adding more mass to the far outer reaches of the solar system.
While I'm not dismissing multiple explanations for Trump's behavior, please check out the times that Trump fails to properly carry out basic tasks.
He's unable to properly load a pickup truck, for example. And he has failed to figure out how to handle an umbrella while entering an airplane.
An alternative interpretation is that raising wealth inequality leads the precariat to reduce the number of children they are having, if they have the education to do so.
While the rich are, by definition, not the precariat, and thus don't face the same financial restrictions on having children.
As fun as a five day work week!
I wonder about parts of his hypothesis. For example, he says that based on our solar system, there should be so few intersteller objects that we should have never discovered Oumuamua.
But our solar system has been mostly stable and boring for billions of years needed for life to evolve to the point where humans appeared. We may be the exception, rather than the rule - just like while our sun is relatively stable and has a terrestrial planet with an atmosphere in the inhabitable zone, that appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Maybe most solar systems are far more chaotic than ours; ejecting much more into interstellar space.
At a 4% withdrawal rate, even 100% stocks looks pretty safe. If we use historical simulations, and keep things inflation-adjusted, about only 1 out of 20 times would you run out of money in 30 years.
In my state, using a motorized vehicle in a bicycle lane is normally prohibited, and I've seen a 50cc scooter rider ticketed for it.
But I haven't seen an electric scooter rider ticketed yet.
If we need border security, why should we waste money on a campaign promise? There's multiple ways to smuggling people, goods, and money into and out of this country. A wall ties up funding - both for building, and for maintaining and patrolling it.
In some areas, a barrier does make sense - and we have a barrier already built along much of the southern border. Some of that barrier needs an upgrade. But the cost of building and maintaining such an improved barrier must be weighed against the need for security at other ports of entry. Else we're doing the equivalent of a homeowner building a strong front door to protect against intruders and then leaving a window open.
Part of the problem, at least in the US, is the idea that the success of a street or a road is measured by how many cars can travel on it (the road capacity).
Which sometimes makes sense - that's a great way to measure an interstate between two places.
But when it comes to streets and roads in close proximity to humans, it's a very incomplete metric. In my town, we have a road that goes between a few apartment buildings, condos, and single family dwellings. Over time, the city has widened it, added extra lanes, removed on-street parking to increase traffic flow, and even a center turn lane to prevent turning drivers from slowing people.
It's built rather well for cars. But as I said, the road travels through a dense residential area. The rule of thumb is that at 40 mph, 90% of people hit by cars die. At 30 mph, only 50% do. (At 20mph, about 10% of people die). So the road itself looks like its designed for 45mph. But a speed limit sign is relied on to drop the traffic down to 30mph for safety.
It's a bad design. A better solution would be to build the road to communicate to drivers that the speed limit is lowered - for example, a road diet to reduce the speed and have less lanes for pedestrians to cross, perhaps some sidewalk bump outs at bus stops, as well as adding back on-street parking to provide a buffer between homes and traffic. The result would be the sort of road that would feel unsafe to travel on at 45 mph. Speeds would be reduced. By the official traffic engineers' metric, the road would not be as good. But from a livability standpoint, it would be much better.
Doesn't that indicate the uncertainty interval (the shaded area) on that graph? So that there's only a 5% chance of the results falling out out that range?
Does this need local access? Or just remote access?
Could this be a C3 -> C4 pathway hack? Some plants rely on the C3 pathway to produce energy. Other plants rely on the C4 pathway. The C4 pathway is more efficient, and there's research to put the C4 pathway into C3 plants.
And according to the law, the tomato is not a fruit. Biologically, the tomato is a fruit.
The law and science are two different things. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not.
For many plants, you'd get an F2 hybrid, which won't be a copy of the plant the seed is from.
You need to have heirloom varieties, grown in isolation, to get a plant that produces seeds which will be the same variety.
Reactors such as BWR don't use coolant to manage the reaction. The coolant (AFAIK) has to be there to sustain the reaction, but control rods are used to control the reaction.
Care to explain this statement? Why is it a bad design to rely on having coolant to sustain a nuclear reaction?
I've mentioned a similar plan, but with all of the company's workers (and their families) gaining US residency.
That makes whistle-blowing all but certain.
Nature never abandoned asexual reproduction. Archaea, bacteria, and protozoans all use asexual reproduction.
Obviously we tend to notice big, multi-cellular creatures, but most of life is not.
Two weeks and multiple phone calls by myself and my doctor. To get what is literally the textbook prescription for my ailment.
Now this isn't some major thing. But from a healthcare perspective, it is broken. Why should the standard treatment be denied?
From a capitalistic perspective, it makes perfect sense to deny a few people - for a big company, just the delay in payment may be worth it. More importantly, maybe some people will pay for it out of pocket or will drop off the insurance for other reasons.
The insurance company's job is to be profitable, and that is a goal that doesn't always align with getting the best treatment. The insurance company seeks to deny coverage, and if they do have to cover treatment, it's best to pay as little as possible. They'd prefer I'd never use medical services at all, and if I did, I should use as little as possible, be it that I recover quickly or die quickly. (Recover quickly is the best for them, since I'll keep paying my premiums, but dying quickly is cheaper than a slow, medically intensive death.)
I've done the US system, and I've run into a few issues.
The US system can be horrible, or it can be great. It depends on how much you are willing to pay. For example, the doctor prescribed the textbook prescription for an ailment. My insurance company denied it. I had to go back and forth with them, the doctor, and the doctor had to call them before it was covered.
If I could pay out of pocket, I would have gotten the prescription right away. As it was, it took about two weeks for the insurance company to okay the treatment.
Okay, so Europeans and later Western nations stole land instead of swindled it.
Glad we can resolve that issue of terminology.
Now I can sleep well at night.
Probably you'd find a number like that. It is also very likely that very few, if any scientists, would blame the disappearance on global warming.
Which probably should indicate we should listen more to scientists instead of random Americans when it comes to figuring out cause and effect and making predictions.
But often a company will require working there for a year to qualify for a 401(k) match, which will result in a hit to actual compensation for the first year, assuming you contribute to your max match amount.