|
Sydin posted:I finally got fed up with how unruly my hair was last week and just used an electric razor to shave my head. Took five minutes and a helpful double check from my roommate that I didn't miss any spots on the back of my head. Not trumpeting it as a perfect alternative to a stylish cut or anything but it definitely improved my overall mood to not constantly be fiddling with overgrown hair. One inch on top, half inch on the sides and back. Style around the ears as you see fit. I work more by feel - grabbing adjacent hunks of hair and hitting them with the razor, and repeating until I've got it all. Takes me a few hours, but the end result looks good and I can do it at home. That razor kit has saved me hundreds in stylist costs and hours arguing with stylists who aren't sure I really mean cut it back TO an inch, not BY an inch. I can't blame them, so I save everyone the grief.
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Yeah, I'm tempted to do this as well. It's not like I'm going to be seeing anyone for any reason anyway. Just don't do what Ted Cruz did and wind up with the Corona-mullet 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:One inch on top, half inch on the sides and back. Style around the ears as you see fit. I work more by feel - grabbing adjacent hunks of hair and hitting them with the razor, and repeating until I've got it all. Takes me a few hours, but the end result looks good and I can do it at home. That razor kit has saved me hundreds in stylist costs and hours arguing with stylists who aren't sure I really mean cut it back TO an inch, not BY an inch. I can't blame them, so I save everyone the grief. Use a handheld mirror in addition to your bathroom mirror or something-- if you have your back facing the bathroom mirror, you can use the handheld to get a full view of the back of your head. If you don't mind a rather simple hair-style, using a clipper with different sizes is an easy way to save lots of money over the long-term.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Most public transportation in california sucks or like the high speed rail, won't probably see light of day to be judged because its all built on a "has to be self sustainable financially anynd rand school of theology" the state and federal goverment subsidizes people using roads and the later amtrak so I don't know why public transportation in this state has to be profitable or even break even.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
The road subsidies, the car subsidies, the oil subsidies, and the airline subsidies. None of it matters. If you subsidize the rail then you wouldn't have a proper free market. You're picking winners and losers When I moved here I got blindsided by this conversation all the time. People would ask me about the high speed rail and then pontificate about budgets.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:The road subsidies, the car subsidies, the oil subsidies, and the airline subsidies. None of it matters. If you subsidize the rail then you wouldn't have a proper free market. You're picking winners and losers Outside of bailouts during crises, what are the airline subsidies? I tried Googling this, but only found a program which subsidizes flights to small airports. I don't really think that is responsible for price reduction for most flights.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:The road subsidies, the car subsidies, the oil subsidies, and the airline subsidies. None of it matters. If you subsidize the rail then you wouldn't have a proper free market. You're picking winners and losers See, the government is like a household, and a household has a budget... 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Outside of bailouts during crises, what are the airline subsidies? I tried Googling this, but only found a program which subsidizes flights to small airports. I don't really think that is responsible for price reduction for most flights. the military trains all of their pilots and the government builds and runs all of their airports also yeah they're bailed out like crazy and had money thrown at them after 9/11 and they typically receive all kinds of tax breaks esp at state and local levels it's quite significant
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
Also the oil pipeline is heavily, heavily subsidized. Boeing has been run on government money since it's inception. It's not just giving money directly to, say Delta. The whole thing is a mountain of subsidy. This is true for a lot of industry in America. The subsidy argument is a rich irony of convenience that only applies when you want it to.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
On KQED, I heard today that Santa Clara county is giving free covid testing to people who have and also DO NOT HAVE symptoms. Here's an article: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/free-covid-19-testing-now-available-for-all-santa-clara-county-residents/2293822/
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Outside of bailouts during crises, what are the airline subsidies? I tried Googling this, but only found a program which subsidizes flights to small airports. I don't really think that is responsible for price reduction for most flights. Air traffic control is government run and free to use, airport maintenance to a big extent is government funded, fuel is subsidized just like it is for cars, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 05:48
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Outside of bailouts during crises, what are the airline subsidies? I tried Googling this, but only found a program which subsidizes flights to small airports. I don't really think that is responsible for price reduction for most flights. e.pilot posted:Air traffic control is government run and free to use, airport maintenance to a big extent is government funded, fuel is subsidized just like it is for cars, etc. don't forget the massive subsidies / make work programs like the f35. critical military industries will never be allowed to fail.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Outside of bailouts during crises, what are the airline subsidies? I tried Googling this, but only found a program which subsidizes flights to small airports. I don't really think that is responsible for price reduction for most flights. If railroads had been getting money from the government for stations, serving remote areas and small places most would not have closed or stopped passenger service. Unlike airlines the railroad also have to do traffic control themselves instead of getting it for free from the government, nor do they get any subsidy to electrify lines either. Compared to air, rail has everything stacked against it, it is as if it is setup for failure. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:Also the oil pipeline is heavily, heavily subsidized. For better or worse America was built and runs on Hell most of the west was settled and built on the back of railroad subsidies.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
e: nvm
Rainbow Knight fucked around with this message at 15:24 on May 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
Celexi posted:Most public transportation in california sucks or like the high speed rail, won't probably see light of day to be judged because its all built on a "has to be self sustainable financially anynd rand school of theology" The buses and ferries etc the Golden Gate Bridge run between the north bay and SF aren’t subsidized at all, as when the Bridge’s management initially suggested running buses in the 70s to allow the bridge to better facilitate larger numbers of people there was concern about them taking money away from municipal buses. Plenty of 101 commuters pay the fare, which by now is approximately $20 round trip between Sonoma and SF. I guess you could say it’s subsidized by bridge tolls to a degree, but it probably isn’t as much now as it was in the past when they went years without raising fares. Ultimately it kinda works but only if you’re providing a service people really, really want. Which is how Californians like mass transit: packed crowds on a small number of routes in heavily trafficked areas, and gently caress you if you need to go somewhere far less travelled.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Just thought I'd share this anecdotal evidence about Nation-State California: My 8th grade history students just finished learning about the Civil War so I shared with them a recent article showing that the popularity of secession from the United States is on the rise, with 25% of the US population today is in favor of their state leaving the union. I asked them to respond with a half-page on whether they think states should be able to leave the United States and the vast majority of them said yes and expressed the opinion that California would be better off on it's own.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
I mean California is the 6th largest economy in the world, we’d probably be okay.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:I mean California is the 6th largest economy in the world, we’d probably be okay. Only because our trade agreements are backed by the federal government.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
xcheopis posted:Only because our trade agreements are backed by the federal government. And we have open immigration from the other states, and are in a monetary union that keeps our currency cheaper.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:And we have open immigration from the other states, and are in a monetary union that keeps our currency cheaper. "Our" currency?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
xcheopis posted:"Our" currency? 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
xcheopis posted:Only because our trade agreements are backed by the federal government. I'm pretty sure california could back up all said agreements.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
California will never be able to secede until Prop 13 is completely repealed. In case y'all have forgotten we're furloughing state employees this year because coronavirus killed the budget.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:I'm pretty sure california could back up all said agreements. With what? You would want that prepared to be negotiated immediately, since no current trade agreement would be valid once we secede.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
economic viability isn't the only metric of statehood viability, basicallyCraptacular! posted:The buses and ferries etc the Golden Gate Bridge run between the north bay and SF aren’t subsidized at all, as when the Bridge’s management initially suggested running buses in the 70s to allow the bridge to better facilitate larger numbers of people there was concern about them taking money away from municipal buses. Plenty of 101 commuters pay the fare, which by now is approximately $20 round trip between Sonoma and SF. In other words, all transit uses infrastructure that was created through the monetary and regulatory power of the State, which costs taxpayer money to exist and function; even if private money "paid for" a given dock or parking lot or whatever, its still only there because taxpayers made a government that made it possible. No economic activity in a country is purely unsubsidized, if you drill down far enough. This is fundamental to how countries operate. I'm not saying all this to just nitpick what you were asserting, but rather, to support the broader argument against the libertarian myth of the independent economically-viable entity, whether that's an individual person or a company or a service. And it ultimately serves as the platform for an argument that, since we already subsidize everything anyway, there's no reason to draw an arbitrary line and say "well taxpayers shouldn't subsidize this high speed train" or bridge or tunnel or whatever, based on lies like "other things we use aren't subsidized" or "we don't all benefit from this so why should taxpayers subsidize it." The determination of what and how much taxpayers should pay, for what services and functions, is still something we have to negotiate and agree with... but the conversation shouldn't be skewed by falsities like "well look, that other private system managed without any subsidies, so therefore this system should too, and if it doesn't, you're just wasting taxpayer money!" Cup Runneth Over posted:California will never be able to secede until Prop 13 is completely repealed. In case y'all have forgotten we're furloughing state employees this year because coronavirus killed the budget. If California seceded, I think everyone agrees it would need a new constitution; repealing amendments to the old constitution would seem to be superfluous? But I agree that the new constitution would need to not have something like prop 13 in it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:And we have open immigration from the other states CA's population growth over the past few decades owes way more to immigrants from other nations than from other states. Hurting the ability of Americans to move to CA won't hurt CA nearly as much as it would if the same happened to say, Idaho.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Rah! posted:CA's population growth over the past few decades owes way more to immigrants from other nations than from other states. Hurting the ability of Americans to move to CA won't hurt CA nearly as much as it would if the same happened to say, Idaho. They also wouldn't be from "other states", they'd be immigrants from another country.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
xcheopis posted:They also wouldn't be from "other states", they'd be immigrants from another country. what
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
Rah! posted:what We are talking about California seceding from the US.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:In case y'all have forgotten we're furloughing state employees this year because coronavirus killed the budget. I think this is actually an argument for secession—if we had our own currency we could print money to help pay the bills, and could much more freely deficit spend in emergencies. I'm still not convinced secession is a good or feasible idea, though.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
xcheopis posted:We are talking about California seceding from the US. the part of my post where i said "other states" is in reference to the past/current situation, in which those states are in fact "other states", because CA was and is a part of America. but yeah, after secession then they would be from different countries. And my point is that the majority of people moving to CA come from other countries already, not the other states. Therefore state borders becoming national borders would have less of an immediate affect on population growth for CA than it would for a state such as Idaho.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
I think if Californians imagined it'd be harder for us to go visit other states post-secession, that alone would kill secession; so some kind of mutual open borders pact with the remainder of the US would be a hard prerequisite to secession. There's no way voters would accept a situation where they can't freely go visit their relatives all over the country. For that matter, establishing rules for citizenship that somehow excluded a large majority of Americans from citizenship might be a challenge. OK, birthright citizenship, sure, but what about your children and grandchildren? How many Americans have no parents or grandparents who'd be able to claim a California citizenship, either through birthright or naturalization? What about long-time residents? Would people like Arnold Swarzenegger, former governor of California, be ineligible for California citizenship, just because he's a naturalized US citizen but born outside of California? Nah. Secession is already an absurdly unlikely scenario, but in any scenario we can reasonably imagine, it's gonna be: any American citizen can at least apply for and easily be granted California citizenship through residency etc., and also we have to secure a treaty with the US that permits dual citizenship or at least a right to migrate between CA and the US, go retire in Florida if you want, or send your kid to college in NYC, or whatever. We're just totally not mentally ready for a hard closed border along the east and north borders of the state, with everything that implies.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
California secession fantasies are cringe. That’s not to say I wouldn’t benefit from it, but it’s still absurd. Also thought that after Palin’s Alaska Independence weirdness that we all finally saw what it looks like to everyone else. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 22:46 on May 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I think this is actually an argument for secession—if we had our own currency we could print money to help pay the bills, and could much more freely deficit spend in emergencies. Yeah but California absolutely would not have the full faith and credit that the US has, so we'd actually have to worry about significant inflation. The Fed is an anomaly that results from us being the world's current biggest superpower.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
It seems far more likely to me that California keeps doing “soft” secession stuff like having a Western States Pact that eventually ends with a Holy Roman Empire type situation.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
I'd rather leave the secessionist fantasies to failed petrostates like Texas. Also I've spent the last decade in Texas, AMA. Edit: Fun fact, the budget for the California EPA is over $1.5 billion The budget for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (their state equivalent), is less than $400 million.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
I enjoy theorizing about secession, but my theorizing trends towards the prediction of all the myriad ways in which it would monumentally suck for everyone involved, rather than the gleeful idiocy of the resulting utopian state that seems to be the more usual refrain.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
Get your hands off of me I'm a citizen of the nation state of California.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Selling california to china might be a more workable angle than secession.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 00:24
|
|