swiftcasty

Bro please fashion yourself some primitive shoes, protecting your feet should be a top priority

My problem with Singer’s approach is that it is intent agnostic; it paints with broad strokes and claims that causing bad things, whether intended or not, is evil. It also claims that failing to stop bad things from happening is evil.

Me putting on a clean shirt after a workout, even though it will increase my laundry water usage, is not done maliciously. So I don’t think that is evil, even though drought exists somewhere in the world.

And if a child could stop a robber by turning a key in a door, but is too scared to do so, that doesn’t make them evil.

On the other hand, if I chose to drive a car that can roll coal specifically so that I could cause ill effects (such as upsetting or doing harm to people or the environment), that would be malicious and therefore evil.

If the demand for high-priced housing is going down, then the price of high-priced housing will also go down, and when that happens you will see low- and lower-priced housing free up again. I'm also not surprised that this is negatively affecting low-income populations because they are always affected the hardest and least financially able to adapt when there is instability or when the situation suddenly changes. One solution is low-priced housing with income limitations.

Members of congress, rise up against your oligarchical oppressors!

I remember seeing this argument about billionaires and corporations leaving the US if they are taxed fairly at a national level. If that were the case then 1. The US wouldn’t lose out on revenue it wasn’t losing out on already, and 2. The “free market” or the government would adapt to fill the abandoned niche.

Hard sell that good guys would bulldoze people.

https://www.measuringworth.com/blog/?p=256

The smallest number I have heard for a statistically significant sample size is 30, from numerous statistics professors at different schools. A quick google search shows that 100 is generally agreed upon to be sufficient to get meaningful results. 179 and 168 should be plenty big enough.

However, there are other areas where these surveys could be erring: namely collection method or location, which could be skewing results one way or another. These factors are not reported on in the articles.

Personally, none of my friends who are in the target demographic are planning to vote for Trump.

1. Ranked choice voting
2. Real estate reform law regulating and limiting the powers of home owners’ associations, and banning corporate ownership of single-family dwellings
3. UBI for the un-housed and homeless

Dawson found that individuals with higher cognitive abilities were less likely to fall into “extreme optimism” about their financial futures. In contrast, they were more likely to have realistic or even pessimistic expectations. For example, those with cognitive abilities two standard deviations below the mean exhibited a higher probability of “extreme optimism” compared to those two standard deviations above the mean.

Why 7.62? Seems like an awfully large caliber for a survival gun. Polar bears?

The short-sighted take here is shutting down conversation through fear-mongering. You are not taking into consideration that American car mfg’s would compete on price and that Chinese EV’s would have to meet safety standards.

I would like to see the US develop affordable EV’s independently of China, but I remain doubtful thanks to corporate greed and rampant lobbying.