👀

FYI, that circle is called a throbber

Ridiculous. I couldn’t name a more trusted brand of RAM.

§cience

Since it’s probably not clear to those unfamiliar, this is literally true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

I assumed this was going to be a solution to Japan’s problems of an increasingly elderly population combined with a refusal to increase immigration.

I turned it off from the gmail android app and as soon as I returned to the inbox there’s a notification asking me to flip it back.

For the sake of argument I think you could say that you’re depriving a scavenger of a meal. I don’t know if that’s how veganism is usually framed.

Fixing the supply problem fixes the hoarding problem. Housing is an attractive investment because it’s scarce. Once you build enough, investors will invest in something else.

In 2018, SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans, at an expenditure of $57.1 billion.[2][3] In 2017, approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

In the scheme of things, the interruption of SNAP benefits was a blip. A cruel blip, but I don’t think it’s fair to say we don’t do anything.

The billionaires are way ahead of you

Hope you were making yogurt

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-u-s-really-less-corrupt-than-china-update/

Whenever someone breaks a barrier as “The first gay…” remember that they’re technically “the gayest…”.

I wish I had a source on this, but I heard that bribery of government officials is the norm. They don’t get paid much so it’s expected they take bribes. But their bosses keep them in line. And the weird thing is that it actually works kind of well to make sure things get done, compared to the gridlock faced when trying to build houses or public transit in most cities in the US.

How would that even work? Commercial airlines and private jet operators are different entities.

Actually we have “right to try” laws for the scenario I described.

But the FDA could use some serious reform. Under the system we have, an FDA approval lumps together the determinations of whether a drugs is safe, effective and worth paying for. A more libertarian system would let people spend their own money on drugs that are safe even if the FDA’s particular research didn’t find them effective. And it wouldn’t waste tax payer money on drugs that are effective but exorbitantly expensive relative to their minimal effectiveness. But if a wealthy person wants to spend their own money, thereby subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of us, that’s great in my opinion.

It’s not that simple. Imagine you’re dying of a rare terminal disease. A pharma company is developing a new drug for it. Obviously you want it. But they tell you you can’t have it because “we’re not releasing it until we know it’s good”.

As an exercise to remove the bias from this, replace self driving cars with airbags. In some rare cases they might go off accidentally and do harm that wouldn’t have occurred in their absence. But all cars have airbags. More and more with every generation. If you are so cautious about accidental detonations that you choose not to install them in your car, then you’re being too cautious.

I can’t agree that they’re not being cautious enough. I didn’t even read the article. I’m just arguing about the principle. And I don’t have a clue what the right penalty would be. I would need to be an actuary with access to lots of data I don’t have to figure out the right number to provide the right deterrent.