Context:
>Get Ready for $5 Gasoline if You Live in California—or if You Don’t...
>
>Golden State laws drive up prices at the pump, and the Biden administration aims to take them national...
>
>Why do California drivers pay so much at the pump? Blame a higher-octane blend of taxes and environmental regulations.
My view:
Taxing gasoline is an effective, and perhaps essential strategy for any government to shift consumer behavior to alternate means of energy. The most obvious and widespread first-order effect of increasing gasoline is the cost of transportation using ICE vehicles. Governments hope that higher gasoline prices coupled with incentives on electric vehicles will result in consumers shifting to EVs over time, reducing the dependency on fossil fuel. My view is that in the US, raising gasoline prices before viable alternatives are ready is jumping the gun because it disproportionately hurts a family who cannot afford an EV. I believe there are better ways of spending the money than giving it to a family earning $249k
To substantiate my view, I will offer what I believe to be a more sensible counter-proposal to the expected US Federal Govt changes, which in brief are: gas taxes ($1-2 extra per gallon, and more over time), and EV incentives ($7k point-of-sale discount for those earning less than $250k) via the infrastructure plan.
- Offer an income-scaled incentive for EVs that proportionately benefits low-earners, starting at $10k and phasing out to $1k between for those between 75k and 200k household income (which are the 50th and 90th percentiles respectively). A few example values; $50k income = 10k incentive, $100k = $7k, $150k = $3k, $250k = $0. Note: There are challenges with conflating income with wealth / purchasing power, but for the sake for this argument I will assume that's a solved problem in the proposed federal plan that uses $250k as the cutoff.
- Announce a plan for raising gasoline prices to $1 a gallon per year over a 5 year period, coupled with an outreach / marketing program to sell Americans on the benefits of EVs - including a calculator that illustrates their 5-year savings.
Roughly 14 million white people live in poverty in the US VS 8 million black people, the claim poverty disproportionately effects black people is derived from the obvious fact that blacks make up around 13% of the population VS the roughly 61% that consists of whites.
When it comes to hate crimes, white people reportedly commit roughly 50% vs black people reportedly committing roughly 25%. Since the white population is roughly 4.5Xs larger then the black population, that obviously denotes a higher statistical probability of a black perpetrator being involved in committing a hate crime. Even though white people commit a larger number of hate crimes over all, they do not commit over 4.5Xs the amount, which means they're statistically less likely to commit said crime.
My personal feelings, these numbers are in and of themselves largely irrelevant, and give no cause to excuse, accuse, demean or denigrate anyone of any race. Individuals commit individual crimes which have absolutely nothing to do with anyone else that happens to share a physical trait.
That being said, if we're going to be keeping track of who suffers from what and how prevalent it is, we can't use the total number for one group and then proportion the other one based on the demographics of the nation.
Either whites are less likely to be in poverty and also less likely to commit a hate crime, or they're the majority of the people in poverty and commit most of the hate crimes.
Claiming otherwise literally requires changing logic mid-sentence to serve a desired narrative.
FOR CLARITY: I ROUNDED THE NUMBERS OFF BECAUSE DIFFERENT CITES DISAGREE SLIGHTLY ON EXACT NUMBERS. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE NUMBERS I POSTED ACCURATELY REFLECT AVAILABLE DATA AND I DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING OF CONSEQUENCE BY ROUNDING.
Following up on the posted Tweet stating, "This season will be 10th time in last 11 seasons that Chiefs had their bye before a division game (6 vs #Raiders, 3 vs Broncos and 1 vs Chargers)"
I looked up the Raiders, Chargers and Broncos schedules for the matching 11 seasons and for comparison we have:
The Raiders do not this season (only 3 in the last 11: 2 Chargers, 1 Broncos, 0 Chiefs).
The Chargers do not this season (only 3 in the last 11: 1 Broncos, 1 Raiders, 1 Chiefs).
The Broncos do this season (only 4 in the last 11: 3 Chargers, 0 Raiders, 1 Chiefs).
Alongside that, looking into the disadvantage side, the Chiefs have had to play a div opp coming off their opponent's bye twice over the same 11 year span. The Raiders seven times, the Chargers six times, and the Broncos five times.
So, over the last 11 years, Kansas City has had the advantage of playing a divisional opponent after their bye 91% of the time compared to their divisional opponent's rate of just 30%. KC has also had the disadvantage (playing a divisional opponent after their bye) at a rate that is only 1/3rd the average of their divisional opponents.
I then looked up the schedule for every NFL team over the last 11 seasons.
AFC list posted in other thread.
NFC list posted in other thread.
No other team has had more than 6 games against divisional opponents after their bye. So the Chiefs have had 4 games more than any other team in the NFL over the 11 year span. 180% more than the next closest.
The league average was 3.7 games. The Chiefs had 270% more games against divisional opponents after the bye than the league average.
The Panthers were kind of screwed only having 1 game in the last 11 seasons (and it is this year, none in the previous 10). The Seahawks, Giants, Patriots, Rams and Buccaneers all have had 2 games.
The Jets, Dolphins, Jaguars, Eagles and Bears all had 6 on the schedule.
Just some food for thought, while we’re all commenting on pending rulings…
The stabilizing brace can be and is used by disabled gun owners to help them in the safe operation of firearms. Should these people simply be stripped of their 2A right to bear arms? Compared to AR pistols, 16” ARs are much heavier and more cumbersome to folks with limited arm/upper body strength and mobility- Even with a brace.
This brings me to my next point. Disabled people make 87 cents for every dollar earned by people without disabilities. Generally poor, disabled, and disenfranchised folks may have to resort to either surrender/sell off their firearm to maintain legal compliance. $200 for a tax stamp is a financial strain for some. 21% of Americans have no emergency savings at all.
Opinions?
Someone said to me the other day:
'Everyone in ___ fandom has anxiety, it's practically a prerequisite.'
And it made me wonder... if all fandoms are like that?
Uhhh… Have you looked at the numbers? Gender differences in Covid deaths, for instance? It’s like they’re living in an alternative reality.
Sources: https://news.trust.org/item/20210305090312-bkgsq/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19741-6
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19andthedifferenteffectsonmenandwomenintheukmarch2020tofebruary2021/2021-03-10
Disproportionate collapse, robustness, alternative load paths. Whatever you want to call it
In light of the Miami building collapse, I want to raise a point that I haven’t really seen discussed in here. I don’t want to speculate about the actual causes of the collapse, but rather the (apparent) lack of robustness. The collapse made the building look like a house of cards. What may have been a single point of failure brought down almost an entire building.
I’ve seen from other comments in this sub that the design of a robust building is expensive, or that it is only required for public buildings (in the US at any rate). I see robustness as a design characteristic. It is a property that every structure should have. The failure of a single element should not have the potential to bring down an entire building.
How do you approach this problem? The methods I’ve experienced:
- Limit the damage: a certain amount of collapse may be unavoidable, but ensuring that it is local. Some codes give a certain area that may be affected.
- Key element method: identifying vulnerable elements, and including additional capacity, additional load cases or accidental loads.
- “Removal of an element”: Analyze the structure with a column (or similar element) removed. Is there sufficient capacity in the structure to avoid progressive collapse? Are there alternate load paths – for instance can a local frame be developed?
I’ve never designed structures in seismic regions, but I would imagine that the approach of developing hinges (and the associated permanent damage) would be equivalent.
Would love to hear what people think.
I (46F) and my husband 'Sam' (52M) have a 21yo daughter, 'Sarah.' her dad is actually my late husband who died when she was 6. My husband has been a dad to her from when she was 10. I have been saving money for her since my first husband died. When I married my second husband, he started to contribute to the savings for my daughter as well.
Our priority was always paying for any education that she wanted and then any money left we would either pay for a wedding, downpayment, grandchild trust, etc. She is very bright and got a full ride to school. She recently became engaged to 'Ryan' (22M) They are planning a wedding for summer 2023.
My husband and I offered to pay for the wedding. From the beginning, our guest list has always been about 100-125, ok with R&S. This included my late husband's family, Sam's family, and mine along with close family friends. I asked Ryan to have his parents reach out to us with a guest list, we really only needed numbers, not names.
Ryan told me his parent's list is 50-60. S and R about 50, including the wedding party. Both Sarah and I were so happy because the thing is, Sarah has always dreamed of getting married at a venue that she fell in love with when my husband and I got married and it has a 250 capacity. I joked with her that if I didn't have to pay for college, she could get married there.
We assume of the 235 people invited, we will have between 180 and 200. This venue is almost $30,000 to rent plus $250-$300 per person for catering. We have already put down a deposit for both. The venue also has 12 guest rooms for the night of the wedding. 3 will go to the B&G and parents. The other 9 will go to my stepson and wife (1) and bridal party (5), R's brother (1), my brother and wife (1), and my SIL (late husband's sister)
Ryan and Sarah were discussing the wedding with his parents. his mother, 'Pam' (50s?) called me outraged that we had double the number of guests as her and demanding that we give her just as many guests. She also did not think it was fair that my brother and SIL were getting rooms and not her family. I told her it was best if we talk to the kids about how best to handle the situation. I called my daughter and offered to change the venue but she and Ryan agree that no way Pam needs more than 50 guests as they don't have a big family and only a few close friends.
We called her back and informed her that we had already set a budget and specifically picked the location because we knew
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I'm so glad we still have the recaster and the ability to narrow down which possible rewards I can get... But I look at the cost of resources...the possible contents...and the possible rolls of those contents.... and before you know it actually receiving the weapon I want is a statistical anomaly.
When you weigh the cost of focusing the advanced tiers against the number of possible weapons inside they're just not worth it. The basic level one is far and away a better buy.
Overall it kind of feels like nothing we can do actually affects the rewards we're going to get. I play a lot... Like a lot... Like probably an unhealthy amount but because of my situation and health it's what I do... And even though I dump all these hours into it, it doesn't matter. For example, since beyond light I still have yet to get an ideal/psuedo ideal: xenoclast IV, Arctic Haze, Extraordinary Rendition, Royal Entry, Blast Battue, bottom dollar, time warn spire(20+ not one with high call...WUT?)
Bungo, please open the gear floodgates... I mean y'all have to notice that anytime there's a fast Farm or it's a double loot drop weekend people swarm and the population spikes that weekend... Remember menagerie? We all really really really like not feeling like our time is wasted.
Thanks in advance, I'm pre-proud of you.
Have you ever spent a disproportionate amount of time to save a measly amount of money? Do you regret spending that time? Or alternatively, if you chose/are choosing not to spend time to save this money. Interested to hear everybody's experiences.
Personally, I do way too much research and product comparisons when buying relatively cheap things.
Why does it seem like almost every social movement is filled to the brim with women and very few men? (I'm referring to biologically) The biggest example of this is the LGBT movement. The LGBT movement is probably the best showcase of this because its population should be pretty much equal across the board, but I don't see that. This is totally anecdotal, but whenever I see LGBT stuff it's almost always from women. I would roughly guess it seems like only around 1 in 8 people is a man. Am I wrong to assume that women and men should both be about as likely to be LGBT?
Does anyone know if there are any studies on the participation in LGBT and other social movements across the sexes?
I should also note that this is from online interactions. If I was to get specific it would be mainly white teen girls specifically. It might just be a case that white teenage girls are a lot more vocal about their political beliefs than other groups of people. That could also explain why about half the white girls I know have a BLM thing pinned on their Instagram, but I don't think I know a single guy who does. The same kind of thing happened with the whole save the turtles movement a couple of years ago. Is it more of a woman are more likely to follow trends than men situation? I really don't know and that's why I'm asking.
I should also note that I don't participate much in social movements so it's quite possible it is more balanced under the surface level that I don't see. Since this touched on LGBT stuff I tried to use the right terminology, but I'm not sure if I did. I'm not trying to offend anyone I'm genuinely curious as to why this occurs.
I am NOT referring to any one person in particular. I have no one in mind. take people at their word. However, as a whole, and in the most general way, isn’t it odd that a majority of our subjects use gender neutral pronouns? It’s disproportionately more than society as a whole. Is this one more thing some are using to be “super special” and taking advantage of the fact that it can’t be called out — because who knows if someone is lying for attention. There’s absolutely no way to know.
When discussing, I respectfully request that no one name names or second guess anyone in particular’s identity. That is NOT the intention of this post. I’m referring to statistical odds.
I’m talking extreme, generational wealth: super exclusive private schools, summer home in the Hamptons, servants, chauffeurs, South of France in a charted plane, always had the best possible choice in any situation sort of wealth, while you are somewhere around the middle class (+/-) -no where near that kind of wealth.
Ok, let me start off by saying I don't think there is anything wrong with being obese and I have no real issue with this observation. As someone who is scientifically inclined, I am genuinely curious why I have encountered a disproportionately high number of heavy set therapists and mental health counselors across many states. I have been in treatment more or less my entire life and most all them were obese or at least considerably over weight. I mean this could just be a sampling error but I feel like across my life, I've encountered enough across the country that it make be representative of something larger. If so, im curious as to what the root cause of this might be. Again, I have no problem with this and I've been happy with every clinician I've worked with
Every time Israel bombs Gaza in response to rockets from Hamas or Islamic Jihad, it gets called out as being disproportionate. I don't think this is incorrect, using target airstrikes is a much more deadly and accurate retaliation than firing hundred of unguided missiles in a general direction.
However, what would a proportional response be? What do people suggest Israel do instead?
I've never seen a good answer to these questions, people tend to just say either something very vague like they should stop oppressing them or something completely unrealistic like Israel should fully withdraw from Palestine.
