Of course, being government, it’s all public information anyway so collaborating in this way is seen more of a performance increase vs manually accessing each counties salary information but it’s the same premise.

We just need regulations to ensure that vertical companies are engaging in arms length transactions. If Walmart charges a company $10 per linear foot of shelf space on the third row, then they need to internally bill the generic brand division the same rate.

When a name brand has market power and charges a premium for a basic product, then another company entering the market and undercutting them is great for the consumer. We can make regulations to ensure that a distributor, advertiser, retailer and the product owner engage in arms length transactions but there’s nothing inherently wrong with a store brand offering products comparable to name brand at significantly reduced prices.

The quickest solution might be to remove yourself from others so that you don’t mentally make the comparison. The best long term solution might be to form the social bonds.

And sometimes you need to tackle the short term solution to change your mood in order to enact the long term solution.

You could make top 10% incomes globally, but if you are living in a top 1% location then you are being priced out by the 9% of the population making more than you.

If you want to live with a certain lifestyle of cars/vacations/personal services etc then you can’t be spending up on the other parts of your budget like housing location.

Since you aren’t in your old life anymore, you don’t know exactly how good or bad it would have been had you stayed.

Moving on beyond that, some places are definitely worse off than others within the US. Housing where I live is getting more expensive, but incomes are also going up substantially. And they are building thousands of new housing.

You mention being a top 5% earner. Unless that is top 5% locally, you are probably using up a lot of that top 5% income to live in a top 1% location.

If the numbers shared for the API costs is what it takes to be profitable, then it’s not a site that will be profitable and Reddit will go under.

Quick google shows that a Hyundai Ioniq gets around 4 miles per kWh. An average US household uses 886 kWh per month. You’d have to drive 3,500 miles a month to have the electric car use more energy than the entire household.

Yes, there is an energy cost in building the car, but there’s also an energy cost in building the refrigerator and dryer and washing machine etc in the house.

I’m sure some electric cars are worse than the Ioniq, but they’d have to be considerably worse to equal the energy used by a household.

I may have missed it but what did they deface?

I see a proof of script execution in what appears to be an uploaded file of a random string of letters and numbers .htm address.

So if don’t correctly there is a near zero chance of any public user stumbling into the site.

If a family member kidnaps them the it follows the usual formula of who cared for the kidnapped person for half the year plus a day.

Or it’s because there is a near infinite number of domains so it’s relatively simple for spammers to avoid bad rep blocks by grabbing new domains and starting fresh.

Sure, the student loan can only go to a school but neither has any collateral which makes them the most similar loan products. So go get any 18 year old to try to get a $20,000 personal loan without any credit and see what the rates are and if lenders would even give it to them.

But can you do research on a business without the businesses consent? Or do I need a businesses consent before sending out identical resumes except one has a stereotypical minority name to attempt to judge discrimination?

Because websites aren’t people. Websites are businesses. A lot don’t make money or fail. They may have a small staff managing them. They may not be ‘for profit’ but they are still businesses.

That’s my issue with the complaints about the study. They blow up and claim to be unwitting participants of human subject research, drawing mental parallels with the Tuskegee experiment when it’s a closer parallel to research performed against companies who were never notified like when researchers sent out identical resumes except for their names.

The researcher definitely could have worded the email better so it didn’t come across as an ominous legal threat. There are valid criticisms against the research. But claiming to be an unwitting subject of a human research experiment is incredibly misleading.

Would there be an issue if they sent out letters to businesses asking how they comply with a California regulation?