The US is a national market, with freedom of travel a constitutional right. Prices are affected throughout by housing disturbances in any other part of the country, although it is likely to be minimal to non-measurable in most instances.
Lack of rental housing in X can lead to apartment building in Y, which will lead to lower prices in Y, which will lead to higher-rent construction in Z, which will lead to less construction in AA...
Small governments are easier to watch and keep under control than huge ones. It's easier to escape the idiotic escapades of a small one that a huge one. Being governments, the least worst argument for them is that they are all "a necessary evil." There is no known method to make government a principled one.
Silicon Valley has some of the most draconian development regulations in the US (part of it is a field used for grazing cows). And when you can't develop, you can't build houses and apartments to build up the existing housing stock, and people end up living in cars and garages. Silicon Valley won't become exactly affordable, but at least people will have more places to live at lower rents and prices.
Stiglitz isn't known for being thrilled with anything approaching individual liberty and self-determination. Hayek and Friedman probably would have supported Bitcoin? So I'll take your Nobel-Prize winner and raise you two.
...overstepping its legal authority by issuing the "Net Neutrality" regulation, in direct contravention to its previously stated position, and the bill from Congress itself, no one who is not somewhat legally literate cannot offer a serious or useful opinion on it. If you think "Net Neutrality" is a good thing, you need to contact your US Representative and Senators, they're the ones that can make it happen. Zealous but clueless supporters of this regulation are barking up the completely wrong tree. And then beyond being ignorant of the law, you have people that don't even know basic civics...
Um, I really will more or less consider you a woman if you're trans and say so. I don't care if anyone is or isn't, I care about who they are as a person, of which sex or gender is generally of minimal importance.
The only distinction I would make in your case would be pre-op or post-op. And that is just about how much you've changed things, as you want to change things, for who you want to be.
My thought tribe mostly shrugs if you're trans, and doesn't treat you any different for it. Although I suppose if someone wanted to have a child, they might a little.
Now I've wasted thinking about something that really doesn't and shouldn't matter.
Mandatory arbitration clauses are in contracts. People have contracts with their banks. People do not have contracts with Equifax, nor is it immediately obvious how it would indemnify any banks. Ergo, the CFPB's proposed regulation wouldn't have done anything in the first place.
Equifax did start with a mandatory arbitration clause in their post-breach credit monitoring services. After an outcry it was removed. And bear in mind there would have been no contract until someone agreed to their monitoring services.
There is not and never has fully been any way this CFPB regulation would in any way affect the ability to file a class-action suit against Equifax.
An honest argument would not bring up unrelated boogeymen, as a scare-tactic to short-circuit anyone from thinking about it.
No, it inherently *is* bad. It's inhuman, as it distills individual human identities into one monolithic gestalt where individuals are told who they must be and what they must do; and if they're not, then they're ostracized as "evil" and/or "stupid," who don't know and can't believe in what they're saying. "Identity" politics erases all identity in the service of low politics.
Based on Twitter's abuse of its users by banning people who lack right-think, and the narrower and narrower that band becomes, they're just going to be banning most of its active users for "hatespeech," i.e. opinions whomever is looking at it thinks is wrong.
The Hyperloop has already been proven to be a death trap, via physics. But Hyperloop One is still working up funding for the thing. Must be a curious history behind that one.
It's irrelevant at the "true or not" stage who funded it. It should not be heavily implied that just because someone funds a study that accrues to their interests it is ipso facto a worthless one. Truth pivots on reality, not who is saying it.
Guilt by association is not a good way to reason through things. Even if it later turns out to be of concern after actually taking the time to put emotions aside and apply logic to its findings.
Is the Intel Management Engine present in all AMT versions? Is the Intel ME problematic in all versions of AMT in which it exists? Does AMT require Intel ME in the first place?
It's not the vacuum itself that you have to worry about. It's when the Hyperloop implodes due to a leak in the vacuum tube, which is inevitable, especially when you look at how they're claiming to build it.
Economics is not subject to partisanship, but rather economic "laws," how things are and operate in a world of scarcity; from which one can draw conclusions on how their political agendas are likely to function in relation to their desired ends. That is informed policy making, not economics. I don't care if you're partisan or not, but whether you are a good economist. And if you support minimum wage laws in the belief that this will help those making low ages, which seek to overturn economic laws such as supply and demand, which operates on the pricing system, whether that system is real or artificial, you do not understand very basic economics, and as such are a very very bad economist.
What "best" serving in an office means is subjective. Technocracy doesn't work, or at least not as its largely progressive supporters argue, because it ignores the fundamental questions of means and ends of government.
Obvious Trump nominated a Republican. Democrats nominate Democrats. During a GOP presidency, there are 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, and during a Democrat presidency, there are 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Why no civics?
Yeah, we used to call this "charity." Some people see the fundamental component of a society as government, and anything outside of it is just weaselly.
Slashdot Mirror
Indian reservations are technically sovereign pseudo-states. They don't operate under the same legal aegis of the rest of the US.
The US is a national market, with freedom of travel a constitutional right. Prices are affected throughout by housing disturbances in any other part of the country, although it is likely to be minimal to non-measurable in most instances.
Lack of rental housing in X can lead to apartment building in Y, which will lead to lower prices in Y, which will lead to higher-rent construction in Z, which will lead to less construction in AA...
Small governments are easier to watch and keep under control than huge ones. It's easier to escape the idiotic escapades of a small one that a huge one. Being governments, the least worst argument for them is that they are all "a necessary evil." There is no known method to make government a principled one.
Silicon Valley has some of the most draconian development regulations in the US (part of it is a field used for grazing cows). And when you can't develop, you can't build houses and apartments to build up the existing housing stock, and people end up living in cars and garages. Silicon Valley won't become exactly affordable, but at least people will have more places to live at lower rents and prices.
Stiglitz isn't known for being thrilled with anything approaching individual liberty and self-determination. Hayek and Friedman probably would have supported Bitcoin? So I'll take your Nobel-Prize winner and raise you two.
Its originator, Professor Wu, is even against the monster it has turned into.
...overstepping its legal authority by issuing the "Net Neutrality" regulation, in direct contravention to its previously stated position, and the bill from Congress itself, no one who is not somewhat legally literate cannot offer a serious or useful opinion on it. If you think "Net Neutrality" is a good thing, you need to contact your US Representative and Senators, they're the ones that can make it happen. Zealous but clueless supporters of this regulation are barking up the completely wrong tree. And then beyond being ignorant of the law, you have people that don't even know basic civics...
Does "Mother Jones" take advertising?
Um, I really will more or less consider you a woman if you're trans and say so. I don't care if anyone is or isn't, I care about who they are as a person, of which sex or gender is generally of minimal importance.
The only distinction I would make in your case would be pre-op or post-op. And that is just about how much you've changed things, as you want to change things, for who you want to be.
My thought tribe mostly shrugs if you're trans, and doesn't treat you any different for it. Although I suppose if someone wanted to have a child, they might a little.
Now I've wasted thinking about something that really doesn't and shouldn't matter.
Mandatory arbitration clauses are in contracts. People have contracts with their banks. People do not have contracts with Equifax, nor is it immediately obvious how it would indemnify any banks. Ergo, the CFPB's proposed regulation wouldn't have done anything in the first place.
Equifax did start with a mandatory arbitration clause in their post-breach credit monitoring services. After an outcry it was removed. And bear in mind there would have been no contract until someone agreed to their monitoring services.
There is not and never has fully been any way this CFPB regulation would in any way affect the ability to file a class-action suit against Equifax.
An honest argument would not bring up unrelated boogeymen, as a scare-tactic to short-circuit anyone from thinking about it.
No, it inherently *is* bad. It's inhuman, as it distills individual human identities into one monolithic gestalt where individuals are told who they must be and what they must do; and if they're not, then they're ostracized as "evil" and/or "stupid," who don't know and can't believe in what they're saying. "Identity" politics erases all identity in the service of low politics.
Oh, Mein Herr! You've found me out! Achtung!
Based on Twitter's abuse of its users by banning people who lack right-think, and the narrower and narrower that band becomes, they're just going to be banning most of its active users for "hatespeech," i.e. opinions whomever is looking at it thinks is wrong.
The Hyperloop has already been proven to be a death trap, via physics. But Hyperloop One is still working up funding for the thing. Must be a curious history behind that one.
For Consumers.
It's irrelevant at the "true or not" stage who funded it. It should not be heavily implied that just because someone funds a study that accrues to their interests it is ipso facto a worthless one. Truth pivots on reality, not who is saying it.
Guilt by association is not a good way to reason through things. Even if it later turns out to be of concern after actually taking the time to put emotions aside and apply logic to its findings.
Is the Intel Management Engine present in all AMT versions? Is the Intel ME problematic in all versions of AMT in which it exists? Does AMT require Intel ME in the first place?
https://youtu.be/Z48pSwiDLIM
Economics is not subject to partisanship, but rather economic "laws," how things are and operate in a world of scarcity; from which one can draw conclusions on how their political agendas are likely to function in relation to their desired ends. That is informed policy making, not economics. I don't care if you're partisan or not, but whether you are a good economist. And if you support minimum wage laws in the belief that this will help those making low ages, which seek to overturn economic laws such as supply and demand, which operates on the pricing system, whether that system is real or artificial, you do not understand very basic economics, and as such are a very very bad economist.
What "best" serving in an office means is subjective. Technocracy doesn't work, or at least not as its largely progressive supporters argue, because it ignores the fundamental questions of means and ends of government.
Good point. I was operating under the assumption that the current make-up of the board was already known.
Obvious Trump nominated a Republican. Democrats nominate Democrats. During a GOP presidency, there are 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, and during a Democrat presidency, there are 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Why no civics?
Yeah, we used to call this "charity." Some people see the fundamental component of a society as government, and anything outside of it is just weaselly.
Sincerely, the Man Who Sold the World
Muh roads.