New Jersey has a law like that for gas. Can only increase the price one time per day. But ut doesn’t apply to all gass stations, just ones on the highway rest areas.

You made a good point and I immediately thought that reporting a gross profit dollar amount as an example of how profit margins are not slim as simply inappropriate. And I would have responded myself if you hadn’t. There’s no single dollar figure that can inform anyone about anything useful about the profit margin of a business. A number without context is useless.

I don’t see how that thought process is exclusive to people who are or consider themselves to be smart.

They aren’t saying that this is exclusive to people who consider themselves smart. They’re saying that they’re more likely to fall for the trap by engaging with the assumption of not being susceptible to being tricked. Although I think the author does conflate smart people with people who think of themselves as smart inappropriately.

AT&T simply had the laws protect them from competition for 105 years.

Cool beans!

See you on Monday!

How often do you repost this question. Seems like the intent is weekly but it’s been 18 days.

I hope no matter your situation that you find a way to avoid heroin or any other addiction to cope with your troubles.

Residential home construction and renovation has always been a magnet for fraud. Take at least the the same level of precaution for solar installations.

Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.

It didn’t take long before people saw that energy was a major factor in cost of operations of the network.

It was a poor design decision

One that is fiercely defended by people who invested into the implementation. So it may not have started with it being anticipated, but not it is and people are actively choosing to perpetuate this use of energy.

Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.

VT for long term
Money Market Funds for short term

Republican voters are never going to change their preference to a democratic candidate based on who the Democratic candidate is. The people who have potential to vote for Democrats aren’t undecided in who they prefer, they’re undecided if they even care enough to vote at all. Getting more people motivated to vote who didn’t vote in the prior election is the only way to gain votes. That’s true for any Democratic or Republican candidate for president. Presidential candidates need to make sure that people who voted in the last election for their party’s candidate don’t become disinterested in voting in the current election.

The tough on crime reputation Harris has may demotivate otherwise likely voters for a Democratic candidate.

Both create harmful air.

That’s exactly my point.

This argument from authority really falls flat when looking at the proposals put forth. Perhaps these are not the best minds despite the efforts of the admissions department.

I’m skeptical of the idea that student protesters typically identify the optimal solution to the problems they identify.

They may be correct in identifying and calling attention to issues, but many of the solutions I’ve seen proposed by protesters at colleges seem at best tangential to addressing the issues.

If the only goal is to reduce emissions, your concerns of the production and use of more EVs should absolutely be taken into account. However, I don’t think that should be the only concern when thinking about the ethics of the proposed policy.

If that’s all one wants to consider when evaluating the ethics of the policy in question, then it seems like the “correct” policy.

You seem to have presented a non sequitur based argument.

I wasn’t making any positive claims. I was clarifying the terms of what one might consider “working”. And how we may want to consider how we value people without regard to geopolitical boarders.

You’re defining “work” as Chinese manufactured EVs having less market share. But if that means everyone that buys pays more for an EV and fewer EVs are sold, did it result in the most benefit for American citizens? What about the rest of the world’s population, in which situation is the net benefit greater?

Tarrifs are only a positive in cases where they are conditioned on labor, environmental, and other externalities being priced in and regional subsidies being countered. That seems like the case here.

But I suspect that the threat is being used as a negotiation tactic and China will call the bluff.

I’m not trying to downplay the pollutants from incomplete burning of methane (or other gas) combustion. I’m trying to highlight that it isn’t the only consideration when discussion policy or making personal decisions.

Cooking with an electric heat source will produce an equal amount of pollutants from burning oils and organic matter compared to a gas heat source. But a methane or other gas heat source will produce additional (and different) pollutants. Ventilation is important in both scenarios.