They were given time to prove it was antibacterial and they failed to demonstrate it.
You don't know what you're talking about. Of course, triclosan is anti-bacterial; after all, it continues to be used in toothpaste, hospital, and food service. Triclosan has also been shown to reduce the incidence of skin infections and to help eczema. And even if you believe that there is some problem specifically with triclosan that doesn't explain why the FDA banned all the other anti-microbials in soap (all of which are also clearly effective and may continue to be used in other settings).
The FDA decision seems to have been driven by a mix of paternalism, environmental activism, and FUD, not sound science.
“Consumers may think antibacterial washes are more effective at preventing the spread of germs, but we have no scientific evidence that they are any better than plain soap and water,” said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). “In fact, some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long-term.”
Is that technically true? Yes. But it is a half-truth. Why? Because while there may not be evidence that antibacterial soaps "prevent the spread of germs [in healthy people]", there is certainly evidence that they reduce the incidence of bacterial skin infections in group living situations and among people with skin conditions.
And when they say that "some data suggests", what they are referring to is two things. First, there is a correlation between triclosan use and allergies; however, that is most likely explained by allergy users choosing more triclosan rather than triclosan causing allergies, in particular since it is a correlation between current use of triclosan and allergies. Second, high doses of triclosan in animal models have measurable physiological effects (without causing disease). None of that "suggestive data" applies to other anti-microbials.
So, you can "trust" the FDA "on science": they haven't said anything technically false. What you shouldn't trust them on is their judgment or that they have your best interests at heart.
Watch for some of the banned antibacterials to turn up in a pricey pharma-manufactured hospital disinfectant
The FDA only banned those antibacterials in consumer soaps; they continue to be permitted in hospital and food service soaps.
But I think you're onto the root of the problem here. Triclosan soaps are useful against body odor and for reducing allergy and eczema-related problems. So, now, instead of self-medicating with a cheap and common product, people will have to see a doctor.
I'm not sure whether that works out better for the pharma industry, but taking away the ability of people to treat their own problems and forcing them to see doctors for their medical needs is certainly in the interest of doctors, who dominate these advisory panels.
You mean where it says "Triclosan is considered safe but is under ongoing review by the FDA."?
The only human effect is a small number of studies that find an association between triclosan use and some forms of allergies in children. The causal relationship is likely not that triclosan use causes allergies, but that allergy and eczema sufferers use triclosan because it reduces infections and symptoms.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
You keep demonstrating the truth of that statement.
Weak antibacterial properties will leave populations of higher resistance bacteria in your 'kitchen colony'.
If that were the actual motivation for banning anti-microbial agents, they wouldn't be banning iodine or phenol.
We were a lot dirtier (in many ways) in the 1960s, it hasn't harmed us (I can see the flame comments already building under this!) and may have been of benefit to our immune systems.
(1) In the 1960's, antibacterial soaps were already half the soap market in the US.
(2) Antibacterial soaps came into widespread use because there was good scientific evidence that they did reduce the incidence of bacterial skin infections. citation.
(3) People generally use antibacterial soaps not out of germ-phobia, but in order to reduce body odor, something that they are actually moderately effective for.
(4) Although science has recognized the importance of microbiomes and exposure to pathogens, little is known about how to translate those results into medical choices. In fact, there is probably a lot of individual variation, with some people benefiting from antimicrobials and others being harmed by them.
(5) The FDA's decision is based on a risk/benefit tradeoff to human health. First, as the FDA itself states, there is little compelling evidence of either risk or benefit, so their decision is based on the principle "it might be dangerous and we know of no health benefit, therefore we ban it". Second, many products have benefits other than health benefits that the FDA simply isn't entitled to, or even qualified to, evaluate or judge.
Overall, you're using the same Orwellian reasoning that the FDA is using; the FDA decision is not rooted in sound science, but in guesswork, speculation, and preferences.
What the FDA could have done instead is required manufacturers of antibacterial soaps to label their products better.
While anti-bacterial soaps are pointless for most people, there is no reason or justification for the FDA to regulate them since these active ingredients are otherwise safe and widely used.
Obviously, we can't rely on US politicians or the US civil service to keep the US public informed about their misdeeds. Russia has the money and the power to do so, so why shouldn't they?
Do you really believe that Apple is going to employ extra personel (no matter how few) just by being offered a tax break?
Which part of this did you not understand?
I didn't say that these "lower taxes are successful at creating jobs", I said that "higher taxes cause a country to lose jobs". You are right that companies are "threatening" to move jobs unless they are taxed less, and that is an entirely correct thing to do for companies.
In the US this is much harder for Apple since there is one global taxation and this fiscal power play isn't that easy.
Each state has its own corporate income tax rate, and each state can give tax breaks to individual companies. That is, the US does not have a "harmonized tax system". But the high tax countries in the EU want to "harmonize taxes" so that they don't have to compete with each other, and this action is just one of the opening salvos.
BTW it could very well be that Apple is going to 'repatriate' some of the profits in IRL to the US as result of the EU actions.
Correct observation. These profits properly belong to Americans and were generated by Americans; the EU didn't provide any services to Apple to justify taxing them at such a high rate. The reason foreign cash holdings are tolerated by the US is as a political compromise: Democrats aren't going to vote for lowering US corporate taxes, and Republicans aren't going to vote for forced repatriation of foreign earnings. But US politicians are going to get really pissed off if other countries are going to try to enrich themselves with US-earned money.
So your US tax evading problem (or do you applaud it??) is also getting resolved!
Apple is currently worth around $733 billion, and they hold $200 billion in cash outside the US, mostly in Europe AFAIK. That is, Apple the company is worth $533 billion, plus each shareholder owns a share of the $200 billion in cash. If that case gets taxes another 25% (it is all profit, of course), that is the same as taking 7% off everybody who holds Apple share. Since US retirement is largely based on stock market investments, that money comes pretty much directly out of everybody's retirements funds, including mine. And since Apple employees get a signficant part of their compensation in Apple stock, that means a several percent tax on their income. I don't want the US government to take more out of my retirement account, but I certainly object to Europeans getting any cent of that money.
Yes, hopefully our US "tax evading problem" will get resolved by the US lowering its corporate tax rates and capital gains rates to below that of Ireland. Hopefully, the next US president will also put European governments in their place and retaliate against actions like Vestager's. If we're really lucky s/he will also start treating EU representatives with the kind of disdain and rudeness they deserve.
As for the Brexiteers: they are no longer our concern.
Yes, Brexit is very much your problem, because obviously neither you nor Vestager have learned its lessons.
Nope. It just shows that the EU Commission is well aware that these kind of tax deals with certain multinationals are made under the threat of moving their jobs elsewhere. Nowhere does it say that these strategies are efficient or even an succesful at creating jobs.
I didn't say that these "lower taxes are successful at creating jobs", I said that "higher taxes cause a country to lose jobs". You are right that companies are "threatening" to move jobs unless they are taxed less, and that is an entirely correct thing to do for companies.
This is allowing Apple to avoid taxes in the whole of the EU in exchange for some kind of deal on jobs in IRL.
No, it is actually about allowing Apple to avoid taxes in the whole of the US, because the only reason those profits haven't been repatriated to the US is because US taxes are higher.
The entire European Apple subsidiary exists mainly for the purpose of tax avoidance in the US. Since Apple Europe doesn't manufacture anything, doesn't take any significant risk, and doesn't invent anything, it shouldn't generate much of a profit. Since there are hardly any costs associated with having a company whose primary purpose is to collect and invest sales profits in Ireland, Ireland can afford to give them low tax rates.
And that is, of course, unfair...
Companies moving to countries where they have to pay lower taxes is not at all "unfair". What is "unfair" is that the EU is using EU citizens as bargaining chips in order to tax the hell out of other companies. What is "unfair" is that the EU is trying to collect taxes on profits ultimately generated in the US, although for the latter, it's the US government and its broken tax policies that are ultimately at fault.
And as Brexit shows, EU citizens are getting tired of this EU bs.
"Grumpy Cat Coffee" didn't copy any grumpy cat image, they used a drawing of a literally grumpy looking cat, so no copyright infringement.
Trademarks, on the other hand, are for identifying products in specific industries. Since the owners of the Grumpy Cat presumably aren't in the coffee roasting business, they don't have a claim to the "Grumpy Cat Coffee" trademark (nor to "Grumpy Cat Software Consulting", "Grumpy Cat Counseling", or "Grumpy Cat Steel Girders").
Taxes are raised on profits, not income. Profits are incomes-expenses.
What companies invest isn't profits, what they invest is the capital they raise. Profits are what shareholders earn on their investment, and traditionally are paid out as dividends. As a shortcut, many companies simply reinvest profits, as opposed to paying them out and then raising new capital.
So, if Apple had high income and would reinvest that income into jobs, Apple wouldn't pay any taxes
The number of Apple employees has grown by about 50% over the last five years, so they are busily creating jobs. And a lot of the people they hire get Apple stock as incentives and compensation, and they choose to work for Apple (instead of IBM or other companies) precisely because Apple's stock is doing so well.
Apple purse is about US$174 billion big.
Yes, Apple has huge cash holdings outside the US, for the simple reason that US corporate taxes are even higher than the EU's. If the EU raises its taxes to US levels, then those "European profits" will simply evaporate; they were never real to begin with. In effect, the EU is playing the same game vis-a-vis the US as Ireland is playing vis-a-vis the EU.
It's also worth noting that corporate profits are taxed twice - once when reported by the company, and again as capital gains reported by the shareholders.
They are taxed even more than that: for each iPhone, there are import taxes and sales/VAT taxes; then, the profits from that sale are taxed again as corporate taxes and then as capital gains taxes.
How ? This whole discussion is about Apple products being sold in countries across the EU
Apple is a convenient whipping boy, but the policies being discussed do not just apply to Apple. That is, the EU effectively wants to set a precedent here that EU members cannot compete on taxes. That's because high tax members of the EU hate losing business to low tax members.
and those countries getting no tax benefit
That's, of course, utter bullshit, since EU members already charge massive amounts of taxes on both sales and import.
Furthermore, think about it: Apple doesn't manufacture much in Europe, and they have little R&D in Europe; what investments are those profits supposed to be on? The reason Apple has massive profits in Europe is because they are trying to avoid repatriating the money to the US. So, as far as Apple is concerned, if Apple's European taxes rise to US levels, then those European profits are going to evaporate quickly and Apple is going to pay taxes on them in the US again. That is, Europe is not going to be able to squeeze much from Apple in the long run.
The effect is much more pernicious on companies that are actually tied to Europe, because they really do stop investing, taking risks, and growing as the corporate taxes get too high.
Do you seriously think they are going to become a Chinese company? Spare me. Apple already is in China in about the biggest way possible
Correct, they are: due to the high tax regime and high labor costs in Europe.
Companies aren't going to close their doors because they make a 6% profit instead of a 10% profit. It just doesn't work that way.
But they are going to have a hard time raising capital at an expected 6% profit because there are alternatives for what people can do with their money. Furthermore, if you lower profits through taxation (corporate or capital gains), that money pretty much directly comes out of other people's retirement funds, which are financed in large part through investments in the stock market.
Your argument makes zero sense.
It makes little sense to you, which is hardly surprising.
The EU Commission accuses the Irish tax deals to be motivated by 'employment considerations'.
Again: that implies that the EU commission admits that employment considerations are relevant to taxation; i.e., that higher taxes cause a country to lose jobs and lower taxes cause a country to gain jobs.
And their political solution to this is to attempt to force every country into a high tax regime.
ReRTFA & its quite clear that the motivation in quote you're referring to ("motivated by employment considerations") is assigned to Irish Tax Officials and not to the European Commission. They're not admitting a thing.
Yes, the EU is saying that the Irish tax office wanted to attract jobs by giving tax breaks and that it is working. If it weren't working, then the EU wouldn't have to intervene.
Note: I have no pony in this race & have no opinion on whether tax breaks create jobs or not. But your referenced quote is not the smoking gun you make it out to be.
There is no smoking gun and there doesn't need to be: even idiots understand that lower tax rates attract jobs. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of a political construct that, on the one hand, promises jobs and prosperity, and on the other hand implements policies that drive away jobs.
You don't get taxed when you are losing money. Companies that are profitable now in "richer EU countries" would remain so, just to a lesser degree.
And if their profitability falls below what investors demand as a return, then those companies move to China or close entirely, and investors put their money elsewhere. And if you don't leave investors any place to put their money with sufficient profits, they simply stop investing altogether.
Just like the US being a part of the EU means that countries have given away some sovereignty in exchange for economic benefits. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
US states can each set their own tax rates. Arguably, US states actually have more freedom than EU member states.
Twitter is losing users. The company thinks it's because people say nasty things to feminists. I think they are misdiagnosing the problem. The real problem with Twitter is that its primary function these days is social signaling because that's really all you can do in 140 characters. That, and it also functions as a status symbol among minor celebrities, who like to increase their notoriety and number of followers through fake controversies and trolling. For both of those functions, it is actually essential for people to be able to get angry about something. Stop people from saying mean things on Twitter and Twitter users will lose interest even faster.
I think Twitter is basically a lost cause: even without heavy-handed attempts at censoring content, the political bias and shallowness of the platform has already turned it into little more than an echo chamber.
I have owned a couple of Dyson vacuum cleaners, and I found them to be heavy, expensive, unwieldy, garish and clean no better than those from other companies. Part of their weight comes from their ridiculous attempts at looking "high tech", with numerous unnecessary nooks and crannies that make them harder to wipe down.
Contrary to what he likes to imply, Dyson didn't invent the cyclonic vacuum; they've been around since 1928. The first bladeless fan came from Toshiba in 1981. The success of Dyson's company seems to be mostly due to taking existing ideas, putting a futuristic-looking design around them, and then marketing the hell out of them.
So, I wouldn't really go to Dyson for advice on what makes a good engineer; Dyson was never an engineer himself, and the products he designs are neither particularly novel nor (arguably) particularly well engineered. They are "well designed", in the commercial sense that their gimmicks and unusual appearance attract many buyers, not necessarily in the sense that they function well. But a well engineered bagless vacuum would be lightweight, easy to wipe down, and cheap, in addition to functioning reasonably well and not being an eye sore.
These days, Dyson seems to spend a lot of time throwing his political and legal weight around.
The point is that portion where he said "As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands. Molecules spread apart," is just scientific babbling. Neither ocean expansion nor "molecules spreading apart" are explanations for increased water evaporation at higher temperatures. The fact that Nye talks with confidence as if these were relevant to evaporation tells you that he isn't just "not a scientist", it tells you that he is confabulating even when reporting on science.
No, but the solutions are rather different once you realize that most of the problems associated with climate change can be solved simply by ending subsidies for people to build in flood zones and a few other stupid policies like that.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't know what you're talking about. Of course, triclosan is anti-bacterial; after all, it continues to be used in toothpaste, hospital, and food service. Triclosan has also been shown to reduce the incidence of skin infections and to help eczema. And even if you believe that there is some problem specifically with triclosan that doesn't explain why the FDA banned all the other anti-microbials in soap (all of which are also clearly effective and may continue to be used in other settings).
The FDA decision seems to have been driven by a mix of paternalism, environmental activism, and FUD, not sound science.
This is what the FDA said:
Is that technically true? Yes. But it is a half-truth. Why? Because while there may not be evidence that antibacterial soaps "prevent the spread of germs [in healthy people]", there is certainly evidence that they reduce the incidence of bacterial skin infections in group living situations and among people with skin conditions.
And when they say that "some data suggests", what they are referring to is two things. First, there is a correlation between triclosan use and allergies; however, that is most likely explained by allergy users choosing more triclosan rather than triclosan causing allergies, in particular since it is a correlation between current use of triclosan and allergies. Second, high doses of triclosan in animal models have measurable physiological effects (without causing disease). None of that "suggestive data" applies to other anti-microbials.
So, you can "trust" the FDA "on science": they haven't said anything technically false. What you shouldn't trust them on is their judgment or that they have your best interests at heart.
The FDA only banned those antibacterials in consumer soaps; they continue to be permitted in hospital and food service soaps.
But I think you're onto the root of the problem here. Triclosan soaps are useful against body odor and for reducing allergy and eczema-related problems. So, now, instead of self-medicating with a cheap and common product, people will have to see a doctor.
I'm not sure whether that works out better for the pharma industry, but taking away the ability of people to treat their own problems and forcing them to see doctors for their medical needs is certainly in the interest of doctors, who dominate these advisory panels.
You mean where it says "Triclosan is considered safe but is under ongoing review by the FDA."?
The only human effect is a small number of studies that find an association between triclosan use and some forms of allergies in children. The causal relationship is likely not that triclosan use causes allergies, but that allergy and eczema sufferers use triclosan because it reduces infections and symptoms.
You keep demonstrating the truth of that statement.
If that were the actual motivation for banning anti-microbial agents, they wouldn't be banning iodine or phenol.
(1) In the 1960's, antibacterial soaps were already half the soap market in the US.
(2) Antibacterial soaps came into widespread use because there was good scientific evidence that they did reduce the incidence of bacterial skin infections. citation.
(3) People generally use antibacterial soaps not out of germ-phobia, but in order to reduce body odor, something that they are actually moderately effective for.
(4) Although science has recognized the importance of microbiomes and exposure to pathogens, little is known about how to translate those results into medical choices. In fact, there is probably a lot of individual variation, with some people benefiting from antimicrobials and others being harmed by them.
(5) The FDA's decision is based on a risk/benefit tradeoff to human health. First, as the FDA itself states, there is little compelling evidence of either risk or benefit, so their decision is based on the principle "it might be dangerous and we know of no health benefit, therefore we ban it". Second, many products have benefits other than health benefits that the FDA simply isn't entitled to, or even qualified to, evaluate or judge.
Overall, you're using the same Orwellian reasoning that the FDA is using; the FDA decision is not rooted in sound science, but in guesswork, speculation, and preferences.
What the FDA could have done instead is required manufacturers of antibacterial soaps to label their products better.
While anti-bacterial soaps are pointless for most people, there is no reason or justification for the FDA to regulate them since these active ingredients are otherwise safe and widely used.
Obviously, we can't rely on US politicians or the US civil service to keep the US public informed about their misdeeds. Russia has the money and the power to do so, so why shouldn't they?
Which part of this did you not understand?
I didn't say that these "lower taxes are successful at creating jobs", I said that "higher taxes cause a country to lose jobs". You are right that companies are "threatening" to move jobs unless they are taxed less, and that is an entirely correct thing to do for companies.
Each state has its own corporate income tax rate, and each state can give tax breaks to individual companies. That is, the US does not have a "harmonized tax system". But the high tax countries in the EU want to "harmonize taxes" so that they don't have to compete with each other, and this action is just one of the opening salvos.
Correct observation. These profits properly belong to Americans and were generated by Americans; the EU didn't provide any services to Apple to justify taxing them at such a high rate. The reason foreign cash holdings are tolerated by the US is as a political compromise: Democrats aren't going to vote for lowering US corporate taxes, and Republicans aren't going to vote for forced repatriation of foreign earnings. But US politicians are going to get really pissed off if other countries are going to try to enrich themselves with US-earned money.
Apple is currently worth around $733 billion, and they hold $200 billion in cash outside the US, mostly in Europe AFAIK. That is, Apple the company is worth $533 billion, plus each shareholder owns a share of the $200 billion in cash. If that case gets taxes another 25% (it is all profit, of course), that is the same as taking 7% off everybody who holds Apple share. Since US retirement is largely based on stock market investments, that money comes pretty much directly out of everybody's retirements funds, including mine. And since Apple employees get a signficant part of their compensation in Apple stock, that means a several percent tax on their income. I don't want the US government to take more out of my retirement account, but I certainly object to Europeans getting any cent of that money.
Yes, hopefully our US "tax evading problem" will get resolved by the US lowering its corporate tax rates and capital gains rates to below that of Ireland. Hopefully, the next US president will also put European governments in their place and retaliate against actions like Vestager's. If we're really lucky s/he will also start treating EU representatives with the kind of disdain and rudeness they deserve.
Yes, Brexit is very much your problem, because obviously neither you nor Vestager have learned its lessons.
I didn't say that these "lower taxes are successful at creating jobs", I said that "higher taxes cause a country to lose jobs". You are right that companies are "threatening" to move jobs unless they are taxed less, and that is an entirely correct thing to do for companies.
No, it is actually about allowing Apple to avoid taxes in the whole of the US, because the only reason those profits haven't been repatriated to the US is because US taxes are higher.
The entire European Apple subsidiary exists mainly for the purpose of tax avoidance in the US. Since Apple Europe doesn't manufacture anything, doesn't take any significant risk, and doesn't invent anything, it shouldn't generate much of a profit. Since there are hardly any costs associated with having a company whose primary purpose is to collect and invest sales profits in Ireland, Ireland can afford to give them low tax rates.
Companies moving to countries where they have to pay lower taxes is not at all "unfair". What is "unfair" is that the EU is using EU citizens as bargaining chips in order to tax the hell out of other companies. What is "unfair" is that the EU is trying to collect taxes on profits ultimately generated in the US, although for the latter, it's the US government and its broken tax policies that are ultimately at fault.
And as Brexit shows, EU citizens are getting tired of this EU bs.
"Grumpy Cat Coffee" didn't copy any grumpy cat image, they used a drawing of a literally grumpy looking cat, so no copyright infringement.
Trademarks, on the other hand, are for identifying products in specific industries. Since the owners of the Grumpy Cat presumably aren't in the coffee roasting business, they don't have a claim to the "Grumpy Cat Coffee" trademark (nor to "Grumpy Cat Software Consulting", "Grumpy Cat Counseling", or "Grumpy Cat Steel Girders").
What companies invest isn't profits, what they invest is the capital they raise. Profits are what shareholders earn on their investment, and traditionally are paid out as dividends. As a shortcut, many companies simply reinvest profits, as opposed to paying them out and then raising new capital.
The number of Apple employees has grown by about 50% over the last five years, so they are busily creating jobs. And a lot of the people they hire get Apple stock as incentives and compensation, and they choose to work for Apple (instead of IBM or other companies) precisely because Apple's stock is doing so well.
Yes, Apple has huge cash holdings outside the US, for the simple reason that US corporate taxes are even higher than the EU's. If the EU raises its taxes to US levels, then those "European profits" will simply evaporate; they were never real to begin with. In effect, the EU is playing the same game vis-a-vis the US as Ireland is playing vis-a-vis the EU.
They are taxed even more than that: for each iPhone, there are import taxes and sales/VAT taxes; then, the profits from that sale are taxed again as corporate taxes and then as capital gains taxes.
Apple is a convenient whipping boy, but the policies being discussed do not just apply to Apple. That is, the EU effectively wants to set a precedent here that EU members cannot compete on taxes. That's because high tax members of the EU hate losing business to low tax members.
That's, of course, utter bullshit, since EU members already charge massive amounts of taxes on both sales and import.
Furthermore, think about it: Apple doesn't manufacture much in Europe, and they have little R&D in Europe; what investments are those profits supposed to be on? The reason Apple has massive profits in Europe is because they are trying to avoid repatriating the money to the US. So, as far as Apple is concerned, if Apple's European taxes rise to US levels, then those European profits are going to evaporate quickly and Apple is going to pay taxes on them in the US again. That is, Europe is not going to be able to squeeze much from Apple in the long run.
The effect is much more pernicious on companies that are actually tied to Europe, because they really do stop investing, taking risks, and growing as the corporate taxes get too high.
Correct, they are: due to the high tax regime and high labor costs in Europe.
But they are going to have a hard time raising capital at an expected 6% profit because there are alternatives for what people can do with their money. Furthermore, if you lower profits through taxation (corporate or capital gains), that money pretty much directly comes out of other people's retirement funds, which are financed in large part through investments in the stock market.
It makes little sense to you, which is hardly surprising.
Again: that implies that the EU commission admits that employment considerations are relevant to taxation; i.e., that higher taxes cause a country to lose jobs and lower taxes cause a country to gain jobs.
And their political solution to this is to attempt to force every country into a high tax regime.
Yes, the EU is saying that the Irish tax office wanted to attract jobs by giving tax breaks and that it is working. If it weren't working, then the EU wouldn't have to intervene.
There is no smoking gun and there doesn't need to be: even idiots understand that lower tax rates attract jobs. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of a political construct that, on the one hand, promises jobs and prosperity, and on the other hand implements policies that drive away jobs.
And if their profitability falls below what investors demand as a return, then those companies move to China or close entirely, and investors put their money elsewhere. And if you don't leave investors any place to put their money with sufficient profits, they simply stop investing altogether.
US states can each set their own tax rates. Arguably, US states actually have more freedom than EU member states.
So, low taxes attract jobs after all? And the European Commission admits it?
"It's not the lost city. It's the city of the lost."
"Do you have a 'gate address?"
Twitter is losing users. The company thinks it's because people say nasty things to feminists. I think they are misdiagnosing the problem. The real problem with Twitter is that its primary function these days is social signaling because that's really all you can do in 140 characters. That, and it also functions as a status symbol among minor celebrities, who like to increase their notoriety and number of followers through fake controversies and trolling. For both of those functions, it is actually essential for people to be able to get angry about something. Stop people from saying mean things on Twitter and Twitter users will lose interest even faster.
I think Twitter is basically a lost cause: even without heavy-handed attempts at censoring content, the political bias and shallowness of the platform has already turned it into little more than an echo chamber.
In case you were wondering, I bought an upright and a handheld together. I wouldn't buy another one.
I have owned a couple of Dyson vacuum cleaners, and I found them to be heavy, expensive, unwieldy, garish and clean no better than those from other companies. Part of their weight comes from their ridiculous attempts at looking "high tech", with numerous unnecessary nooks and crannies that make them harder to wipe down.
Contrary to what he likes to imply, Dyson didn't invent the cyclonic vacuum; they've been around since 1928. The first bladeless fan came from Toshiba in 1981. The success of Dyson's company seems to be mostly due to taking existing ideas, putting a futuristic-looking design around them, and then marketing the hell out of them.
So, I wouldn't really go to Dyson for advice on what makes a good engineer; Dyson was never an engineer himself, and the products he designs are neither particularly novel nor (arguably) particularly well engineered. They are "well designed", in the commercial sense that their gimmicks and unusual appearance attract many buyers, not necessarily in the sense that they function well. But a well engineered bagless vacuum would be lightweight, easy to wipe down, and cheap, in addition to functioning reasonably well and not being an eye sore.
These days, Dyson seems to spend a lot of time throwing his political and legal weight around.
The point is that portion where he said "As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands. Molecules spread apart," is just scientific babbling. Neither ocean expansion nor "molecules spreading apart" are explanations for increased water evaporation at higher temperatures. The fact that Nye talks with confidence as if these were relevant to evaporation tells you that he isn't just "not a scientist", it tells you that he is confabulating even when reporting on science.
Nothing of value was lost.
No, but the solutions are rather different once you realize that most of the problems associated with climate change can be solved simply by ending subsidies for people to build in flood zones and a few other stupid policies like that.