|
Majorian posted:Of course it is, but MPF said "Biden is the most progressive president in our parents' lifetimes," and I'm pretty sure MPF is around my age. I'm also pretty sure most (not all) of us have parents who were born before 1969. LBJ wouldn’t have withdrawn from Afghanistan.
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
D-Pad posted:Isn't that 6% taken from the seller's side of things? Which in theory prices should come down because of the reduced fees but in reality won't they still try and get the current prices and pocket the difference in reduced fees? How would this actually bring house prices down? The economic theory will be that the market will dictate the price and the sellers will want to undercut each other rather than lose the sale, so their incentive is there to accept less on the sale price if they’re still pocketing the same amount as before. In practice does this work the same with home sellers listing probably their most valuable asset as it does with groceries or other retail items sold at volume? Idk, ask an economist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
mutata posted:Yes, obviously. Hence me saying that they'll never unfuck the Court. Being the party with the power of appointment for 20 out of 24 years (like 1968-1992) or at least 28 out of 40 (like 1952-1992) would be a pretty big start.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2024 22:14
|
|
|
Once they had a two vote advantage it was guaranteed to go down to one because anyone who wanted to leave probably didn’t want to be last out the door.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2024 02:57
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Quick lunchtime math from numbers I could find: seems like the tugs cost maybe $5000 average and there are around 300-600 big cargo ship movements in that port in a year (hard to exactly tell what numbers are for what vessel types). The cost estimate for replacement is like $400M so it'd take like 100,000 of those tug fees to reach that cost. So yeah it seems like somewhere on the order of 300 years to reach the same cost. Bar Ran Dun might have a better idea than my quick look though. You’d need to repeat and add up this calculation at all ports with a similar bridge situation tho.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Only if you're adding the costs of saving all the other bridges. You have to count tug jobs per bridge. But the cost and benefit nationally/globally is the point. We’re talking about a new rule or at least best practice is for this not to happen again anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right, but in terms of the value of the rule, you have to count saved bridges against the additional cost in added tug job duration. It's not just the cost of this one collapse, it's thr saved costs of all the bridges that didn't collapse because we all paid for the extra tugging. Sure, calculated by the probability of each individual bridge collapse times the cost of that collapse (including the hit to economic activity and of course loss of life and limb).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 00:51
|
|
|
“Natural birth control” is three words.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2024 23:25
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I saw on BBC that 60 out of 96 potential jurors immediately got out of it by saying they could not be impartial. In theory, impartial doesn’t mean can’t have a strong political opinion. It just means you’ll be fair based and decide based only on the evidence the judge allows to be presented. And a lot of people’s political beliefs aren’t that strong in the first place, if they even vote at all. Finally, remember the question they are being asked is “did Trump conspire to falsify documents in order to break the law?” A lot of people haven’t really thought about that or really heard about it, as opposed to “Trump, bad or great?” Really it comes down to whether someone with opinions can compartmentalize well enough, although you can make a fair argument about how much it’s really possible to set aside bias for or against anyone, let alone a presidential candidate. E: but, if you say there’s no way anyone’s impartial you also have to accept the same is true of any judge ever who is being asked to rule on a legal issue with any political significance. Some would say they shouldn’t be have that power, but most would say either it’s possible to be unbiased *enough* or set aside your biases or however you want to phrase that. And if it’s not possible for anyone, most people would say fine, but we still want a court system for all the reasons everyone’s got one. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Apr 16, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 02:21
|
|
|
In the end, who has said it better than George Lucas (or the author who novelized that scene): Anakin Skywalker: You can't. He must stand trial. Mace Windu: He has control of the Senate and the courts. If only they had charged Palpatine in Coruscant state court the whole crisis could have been averted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
Relatedly, if one agrees with the saying “no ethical consumption under capitalism,” what does that say about the ethics of any voting choice you can make in the US in tyool 2024. (And yes I’m including not voting as a voting choice.) yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Apr 18, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/27281 Real “hub of leftist thought” they got there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2024 18:17
|
|