45% of US households contain PFAS, apparently, but no mitigation or even manufacturing bans are required for years.

In the US, one side cries about regular flouride in the water, but is meh to PFAS. Meanwhile, the other side is supposedly pro-environment, but can't even get the fortitude to ban PFAS ski wax.

I definitely agree they need to look at history, consider what they're being exposed to, and understand how simple and easy some of the substitutions/mitigations could be. There's 0 reason why manufacturers are getting 5+ years to phase out a forever chemical in something like ski wax or dental floss.

I'm all for removing PFAS and similar chemicals from the many places and uses they aren't needed, but if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water, they certainly aren't going to care about penguin PFAS.

From what I can tell, case law on takings via this kind of regulation is “case by case”, without a clear test for when it crosses over the line into an unreasonable imposition on property rights.

Eg - The Strait of Hormuz: Chokepoint or Opportunity?

Essentially 0 people use emoji to create a bulleted list. Nobody unintentionally cites fake legal precedents or non-existent events, articles, or papers. Even the “it’s not X, it’s Y” structure, in the presence of other suspicious style/tone cues signals LLM text.

And no, that 68 year old alcoholic is free to pass into America under Democrat administrations and tens of thousands have. They technically are illegal, but if you selectively enforce immigration laws and offer things like asylum/refugee status without any checks or balances, the net effect is still the same.

Returning to Japan, as the other commenter pointed out, your PhD example is someone that qualifies for expedited permanent residency, a particular subset of migration that Japan has (correctly) decided to encourage.

Japan's culture doesn't take well to immigration, but Canada bars many immigrants or even visitors on the basis of DUIs - I don't have a DUI, and I'd have to jump through many hoops to migrate to Canada regardless, but nobody can earnestly say Canada isn't receiving many, many (too many?) migrants.

You absolutely can measure the likely degree of problems an immigrant would bring. To an absurd, extreme, example: you have 1 spot open for immigration. Do you offer it to a semiconductor EE with a clean criminal record in his early 30s, or a 68 year old alcoholic high school dropout with multiple violent criminal convictions?

It's relatively easy to design a system that prioritizes skilled, contributory immigration: academic background, professional career, salary, age, ability to speak the host country's language, skills of relevance, health/fitness, etc.

Sure, the EE from my example can snap and commit a crime, or lose his job and get addicted to drugs; but at a population level, it's inarguable that some groups will cost a country and others will benefit a country.

That study has 7 to 12% error ranges for the LDS group. Even with that, the share of LDS women with a child at home is 50% more than non-LDS. Lastly, there's a huge difference in rate of decay when a group is at, above, or below replacement rate. If everyone's declining, but they're declining far slower, that still proves my point that the composition of these communities in 80 years could be far different if current rates hold.