Shit politician and terrible person. But he’s pretty good at rocking some killer high heels, which I’m interpreting as his way to show LGBT and drag community support.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/31/desantis-boots-shoemakers-00121044
The difference is still there for many drivers when at a complete standstill.
I’ve been in the same situation. Amazing how different pedestrian right of way can be, even in cities less than 100 miles apart. But countries are another story. Sweden vs Vietnam is an interesting transition, although Vietnam is still relatively pedestrian friendly in the sense that they’ll try to avoid you and don’t get angry because you exist. In some parts of Mexico, it literally feels like the drivers want to run you over, even if you blatantly have the right of way.
Same. It’s a half “nice of you” and half “I’m going now and I’m making that clear” mostly so I don’t get run over.
So weird though. Two humans walking at the same intersection will usually both try to find a suitable way around one another. Of course there are exceptions, but generally, pretty even and respectful encounter.
Throw one of those humans behind the wheel of a car and a TON of them behave completely different. As if the people walking don’t deserve the space in the world. Or that they don’t have the right to be “in the way.”
I try very hard to be a courteous driver and pedestrian, but just can’t believe how many greedy, selfish drivers there are. Eye opening if you walk around a lot.
This article is well worth the read. Archived version:
In sum, some of America’s most prosperous times were when top marginal rates were extremely high (70%-92%). And now the GOP only serves the excessively rich and large corporations to put wealth and power above all else, gutting tax revenue and nearly every public program possible so those that already have money can have a little more.
Thanks for sharing that info. Definitely sounds like it might have been a good idea in the past but now overdo for a change. Sad that the current PM wants to continue destruction to get votes.
Seems like a good example of how policies need to be implemented with a forward-thinking mentality. Can’t rely on future changes.
The cost of solar and wind is becoming so attractive, it’s hard to see why anyone would do otherwise.
The elephant in the room (at least for the US; I’m not as familiar with UK policies) are the subsidies. It sparks new investments because many of the incentives are specifically related to new projects. Other ones mess with the valuation of the equipment, making long term tax burden much lower. It’s not the only energy industry to receive subsidies. But it’s pretty asinine to continue to support the one that’s destroying our world.
“In one case, it’s going to profit, amplifying the incumbent status of the oil and gas industry. In another, under more aggressive decarbonization policy and low oil and gas prices, it’s actively working against the climate goal by spurring additional production.”
Shockingly, it is accurate as long as you consider age 3 and under a toddler. I also don’t think they’re literally tracking it by day but rather just more than 52/year. No matter the pedantic concerns, the deaths from guns in the US is sickening.
The evidence for this article was even investigated by Snopes and found to be true. They framed it as “more toddlers kill in the US than foreign terrorists.” This was all from 2015/2016. And it’s only gotten worse since then. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/
Gun deaths in the US are astronomical. In 2021, 184 deaths by guns from children 5 and under. More than 3 per week. From kids under 5 alone. This is a good read about gun violence in US children overall: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/
Damn near 50,000 US gun deaths overall in 2021. That is more than 130 people PER DAY. Just utterly depressing. And leaders still fail to bring about any significant change. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Ford started this negotiation with 9% raise and eventually went up to 30%. Collective bargaining and strikes work.
And don’t ever listen to someone who says otherwise. They’re either a mindless bootlicker or have something to gain from a splintered workforce. Unions aren’t immune to problems, but it’s the best way to effectively rebalance the distribution of profits.
The healthcare industry has had horrendous work conditions for a very long time. It’s deeply ingrained into the US system. That’s a bad starting point.
Then adding in all the emboldened anti-science and anti-healthcare mentality must be beyond frustrating to deal with as a professional. I can’t stand seeing the comments on social media that minimize the literal millions of COVID deaths, the supposed effectiveness of bullshit treatments, and the utter lack of respect for the people who have dedicated their lives to advancing medicine.
Getting that shit thrown in your face as you’re literally trying to help them has to feel like a giant punch in the gut.
And that’s all on top of the abundant societal issues that these workers have to deal with. From insurance fuckery to the growing numbers of people without homes and those battling addiction.
Living that day in and day out would make anyone miserable.
For sure. The US was once a leader with its public infrastructure and programs, from education to the highway system. Paying BIG money to provide these incredible public services.
Now it seems like a lot of people in the US want to live in a place with zero public projects, crumbling roads, and unregulated utilities. Even wealthy people who waste money on the dumbest stuff don’t want to pay for top-notch public services. I truly don’t understand how you’d want to be so wealthy but live in a place that’s not well cared for. Drive your insanely expensive car on a road filled with potholes. But selfishness and greed are definitely part of the picture.
Creating new public infrastructure in the US can be extremely expensive, but it’s definitely still worth pursuing.
Nearly every in-depth study shows that for every $1 invested, the economic return is somewhere around $4-$5. And on top of that, failing to have adequate public infrastructure can cause serious economic consequences, which are compounded in areas with a lack of affordable housing.
Even though this article is a little old and sponsored by a party with a vested interest on the topic, I think it’s worth a read:
https://www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2018/06/when-public-transit
In my opinion, the problem for the US is convincing people/businesses that it’s worth it. Shifting away from cars and increasing investments in public infrastructure are two fairly unpopular measures right now, despite the actual economic evidence being overwhelming positive.
To me, it’s a solid example of where great leaders are needed to do something temporarily unpopular for the long term benefit of the constituents.
Doesn’t pay enough!
Just kidding. I appreciate the supportive feedback. Perhaps someday.
So far, yes. They’re allowing things to continue as they did before this case was brought.
But much more importantly, they’ve agreed to rule on the merits of the case. While this order might make you think they’re in favor of the administration, they could easily flip against when the issue the actual ruling. Then it’s a more permanent action.
I see this as a very important issue of our time. Social media platforms have speed up the exchange of opinions and information tremendously. But they’re terrible at preventing the spread of misinformation. That’s shouldn’t always result in government intervention, but sometimes it should. There are many restrictions on the first amendment that are justified.
During a global emergency about a serious health hazard, it seems entirely justified to place more restrictions on first amendment rights and allow government intervention when the private companies fail to act.
Absolutely. And this problem applies to many government agencies/careers. It also allows these exact problems to happen more than they should. From police seizing assets to federal politicians selling out for fairly small sums. The underpaid jobs attract a certain type of person, and some are willing to turn to malicious acts to get a financial bump up.
Better pay for public roles would prevent a lot of these issues. It’s normal for a wage gap between private and public positions, but it’s usually not as bad as it is now. Teacher pay is a another great example of a completely stalled system that is now having countless issues because of it. I’d also argue that many federal politicians would be more willing to separate from their corporate donors if they were paid somewhat closer to an executive compensation.
Absolutely. Legally speaking, the warnings/labeling are crucial. And they depend heavily on context. Using a common name like lemonade in a unique way puts the threshold even higher.
Also legally speaking, people blaming the heart condition fail to understand US tort law. The responsibility falls to the provider, not the victim, even if they are unusually fragile (have a heart condition). This is the eggshell skull aka eggshell plaintiff doctrine, very well established in US law.
And if you dive deep into the train of thought of what happens without it (companies blame everything on too fragile/frail of people), most people find it to be reasonable.
The provider must make it safe for everyone OR place adequate protections/warnings that make it very clear who it’s not safe for. Seems like Panera failed on both accounts.
It’s rare for criminal action of corporate leaders to be charged, period.
I think a better starting place would be to change this. Be much more willing to hold malicious corporate leaders accountable for their crimes. They far too often fall behind the security of a corporate veil, which if investigated, usually ends up with a fine, a slap on the wrist.
Prosecutors are allowed to pierce the corporate veil for criminal actions, but they rarely do so.
That’s a good point, but for Sweden, it is indeed 480 paid days. It’s a government calculation related to your income and there is a point (after 390 days) where it drops to the minimum payout, but it is still paid leave.
There are also government-mandated options in Sweden to receive a slightly lower pay in exchange for working fewer hours. I don’t have the exact details here, but it’s something like 75% pay for 75% hours.
Pretty incredible coverage for new parents in that specific country.
This article has a great summary for a lot of European countries’ parental leave laws. And yeah, quite a few are less than a year of paid leave:
Yes, one quarter of decreased profits. Sales for the same quarter are only down 20%.
Another article says “The company still expects full-year net sales in a range between 23.2 billion euros and 24.6 billion euros, sticking to its forecast.”
I understand that it’s sometimes necessary for companies to trim the fat. But with annual net sales still on track and the company making healthy profits for many quarters running, it sure sucks for those 14,000 people that one bad quarter is being used as the reason that they’ll no longer be able to pay their bills.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/10/19/nokia-to-cut-up-to-14000-jobs-after-profit-plunges-.html
Exactly. The IRS has TONS of information on every individual and business. There may be some unreported items, but that’s the exception to the rule.
The IRS has a “transcript” with all of the many reported transactions associated with each person/entity. And you can request this transcript, which many people with complicated tax situations do so they can verify that everything is reported correctly and their records match the IRS data.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/get-transcript