Back up cameras are mandatory in the US, and apparently Automatic Emergency Braking will be mandatory starting in 2029, so you’ll be stuck with some sensors whether you like it or not.
But otherwise I agree that buttons and dials are better for controlling AC and radio than a touchscreen ever will be.
Check protondb.com if you want some idea before switching
I think they’re referring to the 1953 coup that the CIA was definitely involved with, but I’m not too sure how involved the US was in the 1979 revolution. The US probably didn’t have much influence in that one considering how long the Iran hostage crisis lasted.
Trying to send a message with your vote is not worth it
That’s like the entire point of voting though.
Looking at the Food & Drink section, it doesn’t look like you can get much more than coffee and meat with monero, so I’m really not sure how you’re supposed to “be your own bank” by using it and still have access to food.
Alright, so monero is good for coffee, maple syrup, and meat bars (?!). I don’t currently eat a lot of any of those things, so I’m not sure how this will help me with my groceries.
Another big example is any web-browser that isn’t safari. That should be changing soon/recently (see here https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/25/24050478/apple-ios-17-4-browser-engines-eu) but that’s only because Apple was forced to.
*googles the name*
Raymond Earl Hill was an American tenor saxophonist and singer, best known as a member of Ike Turner’s Kings of Rhythm in the 1950s.
Well, I mean we all have our own ideas about the world.
Even the first season had Amon, the guy that wanted equality between benders and non-benders. At one point we’re even shown that power was cut to a predominantly non-bender neighborhood, and when people went outside to protest to get their power turned back on, they were all rounded up and arrested. Afterwards, when Korra goes and tries to get the people that were arrested set free, she’s told
All equalist suspects are being detained indefinitely. They’ll be freed if and when the task force deems them no longer a threat.
Just in case it wasn’t clear enough by that point that non-benders were treated as second class citizens.
If you just search “doctor roe v wade abortion”, most of these articles are the results on the first page. Econgrad is being disingenuous about what sources they’re willing to accept, so I just googled it for them in way fewer words than it took to lie about why they wouldn’t take the NPR article.
I’ll take some local news website or something that lists that sources
In Missouri, hospital doctors told a woman whose water broke at 18 weeks that “current Missouri law supersedes our medical judgment” and so she could not receive an abortion procedure even though she was at risk of infection, according to a report in the Springfield News-Leader.
Oh wow, what’s this? Is the NPR article linking sources, and to a local news website no less? Wild. But if you won’t accept an NPR article, would you accept an interview on PBS?
Jamila Perritt, President & CEO, Physicians for Reproductive Health: It’s important that we understand that abortion is just the tip of the iceberg. You’re absolutely right reproductive health across the board is going to be impacted in a really devastating way. We know for folks that are seeking abortion care, the inability to obtain that care results in long-term economic, social, emotional outcomes that are negative as compared with those who have been able to obtain that care.
Or a guardian article (linking a study by the New England Journal of Medicine)?
Despite a carve-out for medical emergencies, the law endangered the lives of high-risk pregnant patients, according to Texas researchers documenting its consequences in a recent New England Journal of Medicine study. Some patients needed to be “at death’s door” to receive pregnancy termination under the law, the paper found, underscoring how abortion bans create dangerous repercussions for complicated pregnancies.
Or a CNN article citing a study published in the American Journal of Gynecology?
But when five of its doctors published a study – one of the first of its kind – about the effect of abortion bans in real life, the medical center didn’t issue a news release. The research, published in the American Journal of Gynecology, found that at two Texas hospitals, the abortion bans were “associated with significant maternal morbidity.”
Or a Texas Tribune article?
Meanwhile, despite exceptions to the law, the number of monthly abortions in Texas has dropped into the low single digits. Women are nearly dying from pregnancy complications, or actually dying after having to travel out-of-state for abortions, or facing million-dollar lawsuits for helping friends acquire abortion medication. An unknown number are having babies they never planned for.
Or a Fox News article?
According to the lawsuit, one of the doctors, Damla Karsan, “has seen that physicians in Texas are even afraid to speak out publicly about this issue for fear of retaliation” and has witnessed how “widespread fear and confusion regarding the scope of Texas’s abortion bans has chilled the provision of necessary obstetric care, including abortion care.”
Or a second Fox News article?
Doctors told Cox that if the baby’s heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior cesareans, and that another C-section at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child.
“It is not a matter of if I will have to say goodbye to my baby, but when. I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer,” Cox said in a statement.
In July, several Texas women gave emotional testimony about carrying babies they knew would not survive and doctors unable to offer abortions despite their spiraling conditions. A judge later ruled that Texas’ ban was too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications, but that decision was swiftly put on hold after the state appealed.
Does it matter what the source is? Do you even care?
It’s a little different. The Upside Down in Stranger Things is a kind of alternate dimension, whereas in the movies Upside Down and Patema Inverted it’s that gravity is reversed for some people.
If you like the concept of Upside Down, you might be interested in the anime movie Patema Inverted. It has the same premise and came out around the same time.
I think that’s the point: that a state-owned operation wouldn’t brick their own products because they’re afraid of losing money
If that plan worked perfectly, you’d solve the land use and, giving you an extremely generous benefit of the doubt, the emissions from manure problems.
All you have to now is figure out how to build and maintain these high-rises cost effectively, and how to generate enough power for a matrix-like experience and all the VR headsets and treadmills for the cows. And even then you’d still be wasting a lot of food by feeding it to animals rather than just eating it directly.
We already have at least a century of research telling us that burning fossil fuels leads to climate change. What's AI going to do at this point?
None of those benefits came close to the cost of the program
How do you measure the cost-to-benefit of longer maternity leave? Or higher high school graduation rates? Not everything the government does needs to directly make a profit. Just look at roads for an obvious example of that.
once initiated productively decreased. Likely would have even decreased further but people knew the free money would eventually end.
There was only about a 13% decrease in hours worked for the entire family on average, and most of that was women going back to work after a pregnancy later and teenagers not working (probably so they could keep going to school).
How do you pay for a program when the local area taxes don’t cover it particularly when the tax income actually decreases once instituted?
It's not about Canada, but you can always find a way to pay for things if you really want to, even if they're objectively bad for tax income.
It was determined the cost economically was far higher than the returns.
In the end the project ran for four years, concluding in 1979, but the data collection lasted for only two years and virtually no analysis was done by project staff. New governments at both federal and provincial levels reflected the changing intellectual and economic climate. Neither the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark in Ottawa nor Sterling Lyon’s Tories in Manitoba were interested in continuing the GAI experiments. The fate of the original data—boxes and boxes of paper files on families containing questionnaires related to all aspects of social and economic functioning—was unclear. They were stored in an unpublicized location by the Department of National Health and Welfare. In the end, only the Winnipeg sample, and only the labour market aspects of that sample, was ever made available. The Dauphin data, collected at great expense and some controversy from participants in the first large scale social experiment ever conducted in Canada, were never examined.
This study involved using one small town, Dauphin, as a a test for what happens when everyone in the population qualifies for the basic income. The study ran out of money long before the researchers originally thought it would, and the majority of the data wasn't analyzed until relatively recently.
The general result found in all the experiments was that secondary earners tended to take some part of the increased family income in the form of more time for household production, particularly staying home with newborns. Effectively, married women used the GAI to finance longer maternity leaves. Tertiary earners, largely adolescent males, reduced their hours of work dramatically, but the largest decreases occurred because they began to enter the workforce later. This delay in taking a first job at an older age suggests that some of these adolescent males might be spending more years in school. The biggest effects, that is, could be seen as either an economic cost in the form of work disincentives or an economic benefit in the form of human capital accumulation.
New mothers and teenagers weren't required to spend as much time working
Money flowed to Dauphin families from MINCOME between 1974 and 1978. During the experiment, Dauphin students in grade 11 seemed more likely to continue to grade 12 than their rural or urban counterparts, while both before and after the experiment they were less likely than their urban counterparts and not significantly more or less likely than their rural counterparts to complete highschool. Grade 11 enrolments as a percentage of the previous year grade 10 enrolments show a similar pattern.
Highschool graduation rates went up
Overall, the measured impact was larger than one might have expected when only about a third of families qualified for support at any one time and many of the supplements would have been small. …At the very least, the suggestive finding that hospitalization rates among Dauphin subjects fell by 8.5 percent relative to the comparison group is worth examining more closely in an era characterized by concern about the increasing burden of health care costs. In 1978, Canada spent $7.5 billion on hospital costs; in 2010 it was estimated to have spent $55 billion—8.5 percent of which adds up to more than $4.6 billion. While we recognize that one must be careful in generalizing potential health system savings, particularly because we use hospitals differently today than we did in 1978, the potential saving in hospital costs associated with a GAI seems worthy of consideration.
And hospitalization rates went down. There were other effects, like small businesses opening during the period of MINCOME and shutting down after, a possible decline in women under 25 having children, but none of this was evaluated for whether it was worth the money or not.
From the source of link 3:
Figure 17 Primary Reasons for Leaving Last Housing, All Participants
- Lost or reduced income: 12%
- Conflict among residents: 9%
- Didn't want to impose/wanted own space: 7%
- Conflict with property owner: 7%
- Someone else became sick, disabled, or died: 6%
- Building was sold or foreclosed: 6%
- Violence or abuse in the household: 5%
- Breakup between residents: 4%
- Participant's substance use: 4%
- Other needed more space: 4%
and also:
To understand what participants believed may have prevented their homelessness, we asked them to engage in a thought experiment about the likelihood that their homelessness could have been prevented had they received financial intervention. We provided all participants with three different scenarios and asked them whether each intervention would have prevented their becoming homeless for at least two years.29 The interventions were: (1) a monthly rental subsidy worth $300-$500; (2) a one-time payment of $5,000 to $10,000; or, (3) a voucher that limits rent contribution to 30% of their income (such as a Housing Choice Voucher).
FIGURE 21 Participant Report of Effect of Hypothetical Homelessness Prevention Interventions by Family Structure
All
- $300-$500/month shallow subsidy: 70%
- $5,000-$10,000 one-time payment: 82%
- Housing voucher: 90%
So while "not enough money" might not have been the most common cause for people being homeless, the vast majority of people think having more money or cheaper housing would have prevented them from becoming homeless.
What? But they’re flushable*, it says so right on the package.
* if your municipality allows it. No municipality does.