I’m getting a bit more optimistic when I read about companies like Terraform Industries and Prometheus Fuels. If they really can make efuels cheaper than fossil fuels, things can change really fast for the better.
Seems to have been debunked: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/03/21/why-freakonomics-failed-to-transform-economics
Later researchers found a coding error and pointed out that Mr Levitt had used the total number of arrests, which depends on the size of a population, and not the arrest rate, which does not. Others pointed out that the fall in homicide started among women. No-fault divorce, rather than legalised abortion, may have played a bigger role.
Didn’t machines at that time take mere seconds to boot?
That sounds much more reasonable, but don’t forget these numbers are also skewed by sexism, on many levels. Victims might not even realize they are victims. In many jurisdictions a woman having nonconsensual sex with a man isn’t even considered rape.
Now, I don’t believe the numbers are even close to 50/50 or that women don’t have the right thing being wary. But being wary is one thing, simply banning all sleepovers at the house of single male parents is another. I’d still call that sexist.
How many of your car rides are really necessary?
Explain to me how that is not sexist?
Here’s the Oxford Dictionary of sexism:
sexism /ˈsɛksɪz(ə)m / ▸ noun [mass noun] prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex: sexism in language is an offensive reminder of the way the culture sees women.
To burst your bubble, some of the most famous rapists and child molesters I know of had their wives help them. Women can be monsters too.
Do you also not allow your kids to set foot in a car? Much more dangerous than sleepovers
That doesn’t really make much sense since salted and pickled foods are eaten up north. The more logical explanation is that spicy food doesn’t grow up north.
They might realize that increasing wealth inequality might not be good for them either on the long term. They are so rich that losing 99% of their wealth doesn’t have any real impact on their day to day life anyway.
You mean like explained here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKAScORevQ ? That’s indeed not ideal, but I would say still absolutely better than FPTP?
That said, approval voting does look better to me.
I assume you mean ranking your second choice lower can make your first choice win? I would say that’s actually a great advantage of RCV, it means moderates have more chance to win. Someone who’s liked by everyone but is nobody’s favorite can win.
EDIT: After some reading, I retract my statement, Ranked has a bunch of glaring flaws and can be worse sometimes.
Care to elaborate? Ranked choice isn’t perfect, (a perfect voting system is mathematically impossible : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow’s_impossibility_theorem ) but I don’t see where it would be worse than FPTP.
Divide by 10, minus 10%
Full price? Paying extra for someone to ruin your pants and their lungs you mean