As someone who has setup and ran hundreds of mail servers, it makes very little sense for the average person to run their own mail server.
Gmail is free. Gmail for business is $72/year and is on the high end. There are plenty of companies like zoho and many domain
registars that offer free custom domain hosting. Spam is an arms race and it makes no sense for the average person to spend
the hours needed to maintain a mail server especially someone who would be affected by this policy of being deleted after 2 years of inactivity.

I was obviously not talking about myself. I was pointing out that the same people who say plastic is evil because it doesn't decompose are also usually the same ones that are complaining about carbon dioxide and plastic being buried in landfills but a non-decomposing substance that is made mostly of carbon works great as a carbon sink whether it is in blocks or in unsorted trash in a landfill.

Carbon offset can work but we need to rethink how we do it. Something like this might be the solution. If we said for every ton of carbon you take from the ground you have to put a ton back, then we could take out valuable carbon like oil and rebury less valuable carbon like unsorted used plastic bottles.

There is lots of low value carbon that could be buried instead of burned/recycled to compensate for the carbon we take out out of the ground.
If buried plastic takes 1000 years to decompose then every ton of plastic taken to a landfill is a ton of sequestered carbon.

Plastic is evil, it takes 1000 years to decompose, but if that's the case then every bottle that someone throws away in the trash
and gets buried in a landfill acts like a carbon sink. Same with any other trash that gets buried and takes a long time to decompose.

I think you missed my point. I'm saying tax energy usage over a certain amount. For instance, allow everyone an allowance of the energy required on a typical 3000 square foot house. This doesn't drive people into poverty or disproportionately affect minorities.

Maybe i should have used the word "luxury tax" or "discretionary spending tax" or just "consumption tax" or "use tax"
The government needs revenue and whatever you tax you tend to get less of so it makes more sense to tax consumption than income.

It's not odd. It's a symptom of the obsession with capitalism and economic freedom. Capitalism left unregulated almost always results in one company dominating. To have a truly open market, the government has to keep monopolies in check but not only does the USA usually take too much of a hands off approach but the larger monopolies also have become really good at buying off politicians and getting regulations that even help them maintain their monopolies.

I have no problem with a sin tax like this but it is a tax and needs to go thru the proper channels.
The only real problem I see with a tax like this is that it just gets passed on to the consumer.
I think it might be better to have a consumer level tax. Instead of giving discounts to heavy consumers,
it would be better to charge the same or more for every kilowatt consumed.
You could do this by having a tax that increases with the amount of electricity consumed.
This would penalize people with very large and inefficient houses.

That's pretty much how it works in the USA for large companies and large layoffs.
They are required to either give 2 months notice or continue to pay you for 2 months if they layoff more than 50 employees.
For individual layoffs, there is no required notification but the government will pay you as long as you are unemployed
for up to 20 weeks if you get fired without cause.

She was a school teacher but the private company I currently work at also does not cap the number of sick or vacation days that you can roll over.
I know it is common practice but I personally think that not allowing earned vacation and sick days to accumulate indefinitely is theft
by the employer and should be illegal.

As an American, I don't understand the other way.

In America, you can get fired at any time for any reason but you generally get paid for an additional length of time, get severance pay, or get unemployment (paid by the government but funded by the employer)

How does it work if the employer can't fire the employee or the employee can't quit at will? This is such a bizarre concept to me. It's like saying someone can't get a divorce. Why would an employee even want to show up to some place where they are no longer welcome? Many places, for security reasons, when they fire you, they also escort you to the door so you can't steal, sabotage, etc.. I can't imagine not being able to fire someone at will. I can see having to pay them for an additional period of time (which we also have in the USA) but I can't imagine being required to allow them to continue working.

In the USA, it's not uncommon for both vacation and sick days to be paid out when you leave.
My grandma had like 400 days of sick pay built up when she retired after 40+ years so she kept getting
a paycheck for over a year after she retired.

A median human that can self improve and never forget won't stay a median human for very long.
Already, chatGPT has more raw knowledge than any human alive.
It just needs to learn to use that knowledge more intelligently.

Just like cigarette butts, recycling them isn't probably an option but getting people to switch to reusable vapes seems like an easy win.
I'm honestly surprise that disposable vapes are so popular. I'm surprised they don't take the razor route and give away
cheap reusable vapes at or below cost and make the money back on selling cartridges.

That's an easy win and reduces this by over half.

An alert is not necessary for amazon prime.
If you cancel now, you still get to keep your benefits until they expire.
Also, Amazon is one of the few companies that actually gives you the option to get a prorated refund if you cancel.