The thing about real estate though, is that supply is inelastic. Your one landlord cannot just turn up production and pump out a million widgets of housing. They’ll sell out, fast. And you’re back to square one.

All the sophisticated (institutional) landlords modeled and realized that with higher prices and lower occupancy rates they still make more money, and they all use ONE company to set their price on each unit.

Game theory, it’s in the interest of every landlord if prices go up a little, so the overwhelming majority will raise rent.

Fact is only so much stuff is made and only so much space exists and only so many people exist to make and build etc. Money is just an abstraction for allocating those resources. Broadly speaking the market would adjust and everything would remain the same for 95% of people. The HOPE of UBI advocates is that, after adjustments to prices, the UBI would have an impact on that last 5%.

Oh yes, improve security by mandating that everyone uses higher level languages that encourage importing libraries.

I hate to pull the AI card, but AI has a better chance of catching low level language type issues than forcing people to use tools they didn’t want to has of accomplishing anything positive.

Only when there’s enough people that it’s bordering revolution. Note how many national guard were not only deployed, but actually found themselves in gun battles (over civil rights), it was nuts by today’s norms.

It’s the banks problem, to be frank. If you’re in the US, your liability for fraud is capped by law at $50 per card.

Which one is that? I’m not sure you understand the difference if you think both can possibly be represented by the same party.

Was this based on sentencing guidelines at the time?

But yeah… Brought to you by the same people who convince juries that nullification is not a real thing for malum-prohibitum crimes.

Democrats aren’t exactly a healthy representation of moderation. They’re too authoritarian for me to want the other party to be the actually-socialist party. Socialist and libertarian would be a balance, but it requires a big chunk of the Democrat platform to burn alongside MAGA. Honestly actually-socialist and actually-libertarian would be the two parties we really need today.

But what will replace them? Uni-party doesn’t work either (e.g. NYC)

Like… Kernel written in scratch?

Nobody’s built a supercomputer powerful enough to run a python version of even Linux Lite Edition.

Power of the stream is a factor… As well as aim and your bowl geometry, some just splash more. I have the bladder of a squirrel, and generally splatter no more than a few drops on the toilet seat if I fail to raise it. My bestie will absolutely cover my bathroom in splatter.

But you’re right, and the management who kept ignoring problems is going to be tried here. It just so happens that the producer was also an actor and happened to be the one given a bad prop. Alec was the manager of everyone: he hired people, and decided they were doing a good enough job. After employees complained about safety problems, he ignored them. After people QUIT over those safety problems, he continued ignoring them. Alec the producer is the one on trial, not Alec the actor.

Carbs are carbs, sugar is sugar, high glycemic sugars need somewhere to go quickly

I have a relative, a PhD no less (albeit in English), who “only eat natural organic GMO-free” and will absolutely not accept that fruits are sweet because of sugar and count against you like any other sugar

Not police force, but actually to patrol the border? Isn’t that what they were set up to do? (Albeit to defend against state actors and not individuals)

Ironically, pretty close to what Texas wanted before being forced to do it themselves when the federal government did nothing about their complaints except denounce them for political points.

Fundamentally different things… Party goers were doing a thing in a place where the government expressly says it’s safe and you don’t need to go around armed. Very different from enemy combatants using hostages as shields.

Yes, because then they can avoid any liability for the business as well as avoiding blame for the administrators who are guilty of 8 negligent homicides because they ignored the 8 after the second death that meant there was definitely something more than a freak accident going on

The problem there is that neither political party can reconcile this untrustworthiness of police with in their party line.

I think to some degree this is tripped up by the parties positions on guns: Republican party messaging is pro-cop, but cannot trust police so much that it undermines the pro-gun position that you cannot actually trust police to be the only ones capable of protecting you. Conversely Democrat party’s messaging sort of distrusts police, but cannot openly distrust them to a degree that reconciles with actually NOT trusting them to be your only line of defense as it undermines this core political position that it is wrong for citizens to have the means for armed self-defense.

How can a power company realistically be compelled to provide power, in an emergency? They cannot guarantee that any more than a police officer can guarantee their ability to protect you.

Such a law could only be there to create scapegoats for politicians to hang after they botch the response to a natural disaster or some minor event that significantly disrupts power distribution.