Automakers, textbook writers, etc cater to the largest state they serve (or the lowest common of several large markets), then distribute the same version to multiple locations.

In the case of cars, which have to adhere to California regulations to be sold in California, that can drive up the price in other markets due to expensive parts required for compliance and auto-manufacturers standardizing.

It’s also more constructive to explain why people are wrong (eg, why you think car regulations one place can’t impact the price in others) than just call them stupid.

I want to see an actual study, because my anecdata doesn’t match the claimed experience.

How, exactly?

Your position is that they’d be better off with a different job, but presumably we’re talking about adults there by choice.

How is voluntary prostitution more exploitative than, say, a construction worker? ...or even third shift at a grocery store?

I mean, if your point is Marxist all labor for pay is “exploitation”, okay — but otherwise, I don’t see how adults choosing a profession exploits them.

Code review is a tool to push back on your manager ignoring testing: “Steve requested I add X tests.”

80% of my clicks are my palm grazing the edge as I hold it or trying to scroll and accidentally clicking on some block element link that doesn’t stand out as a button.

It seems very analogous: unprovoked punches and unprovoked de-modding are both wrong, but both are also needed to stop some kinds of abuse.

> The motivation for using video review in sports is obvious: to get more calls right.

The writing seems to ignore the very premise, by arguing the existence of edge cases to the edge cases makes any improvement impossible.

Seems the sort of ridiculous navel gazing that earns philosophy a bad reputation.

The drafting bank always tells the depositing bank if those funds are available, which is what they did here: it’s how checks work. You would discover the same information yourself, when it cleared or didn’t.

If you take a check to the drafting bank, they’ll check the funds in the account right then and there and either pay you or tell you there are insufficient funds.

All that happened is they did it on the phone rather than through a clearing house or in person, but the exact same information was exchanged:

1. The account number and amount on the check was reported to the drafting bank, which both the depositor and his bank knew from the check already.

2. The drafting bank confirmed those funds were available, which would have been revealed when the check cleared or didn’t through other means.

Having a bank call another bank to clear a check isn’t uncommon — I’ve had it done with payroll checks for the same reason, that I needed to pay rent.

It takes advantage of cancers rerouting blood and being overly aggressive in gathering resources to make those the first of your cells to die as you’re poisoned to death, on the theory that there’s some slightly sublethal dosage that kills only some of your cells (and hopefully, the cancerous ones).

It’s wonderful that’s been your experience of women, but don’t invalidate what others experience — particularly with a citation free comment.

For those wondering why my comment is flagged: dang engages in political censorship, and flagged my account because of my views. I look forward to the upcoming rules on social media censorship, and the accountability that will bring to dang’s actions.

It’s within the reach of many grants to afford a few scaled runs of a technology as a demonstration of behavior at scale.

A state organization is legally bound to offer certain equal rights and due process protections, which is one of the trade-offs of having state schools.

Then you can compare two stocks by looking at their return at T1 relative to their price at T0. This solves the problem that you’re better off investing in a $5 stock going to $10 than a $100 stock going to $115, since it normalizes it to 1 going to 2 and 1 going to 1.15 respectively.

For switching you may need something more complicated, like looking at the price at Tn divide by the price at Tn-1.

As you’ve done here.

“I’m emotional about something that might happen to my child, look at these dead kids!” while refusing to address their point — guns used for self defense and civil freedom — isn’t having a discussion, and isn’t a way to reason about a complex trade off in society. It’s using dead children as a grotesque banner for your emotional manipulation.

Maybe if you want a discussion, try having one?

“Physician, heal thyself.”

They’re so busy with their “more important” issues, that the whole thing fails in practice.

If they truly had organizational wisdom we could utilize, why don’t they deploy it themselves, to keep their website online during small spikes in traffic?

If their work can’t even be applied to their own organization successfully, why should we believe it will be successful elsewhere?

It looks like “direct black hole” is on both sides of “no remnants”.