Well your second statement is correct, anyways.
There is no such thing as an idiot proof flat tax.
Businesses by their nature have very complicated taxes. We'll let them write off a $45,000 truck to deliver product but not a $45,000 mercedes (unless you are in the limo business in which case, you might be able to after all).
Wealthy people, by their nature, have very complicated taxes. Is this a business trip or a holiday? Is this a business lunch or a personal lunch?
We can reduce the loopholes (temporarily) but corporate bought representatives will put them right back in. The flat tax by it's nature is either regressive OR has a massive deduction for everyone which means many of the poorest won't be paying taxes (just like now).
Each share of the national spending last year was $10,000 for every baby, child, senior, and working person. It's about $20,000 if you restrict it to adults who have earnings. That means- unless people can earn well over $20,000 there is not point in working under a totally flat tax. Which means it must be progressive (you have to take money from those who have money to pay).
AND it ignores state and local taxes which are currently higher on the poor than the middle class and higher on the middle class than on the wealthy in every single state. In some states, it's 12.9% for the poorest but under 1% for the wealthiest.
It's pretty simple. Do you want to vote for corporate sock puppet #1 or #2?
But the republican sock puppets are very much against my self interest. The party has drifted a long way from when I voted for three republican presidents in a row.
Conservation of momentum is more than "new physics". It's quite fundamental, thanks to Noether's Theorem: conservation of momentum is mathematically equivalent to "the laws of physics don't vary with spatial coordinates", that is, the X, Y, and Z axes can be "zeroed" anywhere, the choice of coordinates are arbitrary as long as their consistent. The universe would be a very strange place indeed if this weren't true, and furthermore we'd have noticed by now.
So, whatever's going on here, momentum is being conserved. Just how that's happening is the curious bit. It wasn't obvious until the early 1900s that light had momentum - maybe there's something else we're missing, or maybe this really is an actual "warp" drive that locally changes the metric of space (in a way different from GR) and momentum really isn't conserved. Somehow I doubt the latter is true.
Photons have momentum, but they don't have mass. You don't technically need mass, just conservation of momentum. The key is that the thrust produced that way is very small indeed, and that's apparently not the mechanism of this drive.
And where would the colder place be to vent that heat?
Just pop up a little lead umbrella so there's a shady spot.
It would cost me money to use 2FA
It'll cost you money to not use 2FA too. Pay now or pay later.
I get 2000 texts a month on my $30 plan - I use maybe 10 2FA messages in that time - hardly worth complaining about. Electricity costs money too!
But to the GP - password quality is part of good 2FA; one is not a replacement for the other.
More likely, someone could run a forklift into one of the massive Fluoride gas tanks and puncture it (the gas is used to surface polysilicon wafers), wiping out a couple of hundred people Union-Carbide-style.
That's a minimal risk and some precautions can be made. But the more relevant metric is that roofing jobs are among the most dangerous in the US. Solar installers on roofs will fall to their deaths (or severe injury), and that's a guarantee. There's no magic that keeps solar installers safer than roofing installers.
I'm guessing it will be about as deadly as coal, per megaWatt. Nothing nearly as safe as atomic power or hydro.
Sure, and had he appeared in person, your argument might make sense as the arrest of a fugitive might endanger others. But that's not what happened here: this was the city simply censoring content it disapproved of.
That's sort-of true. The government can regulate commerce in a way that it can't regulate speech. Obscenity laws, for example, can be constitutional if they prohibit selling specific content, as it's not the content that's illegal, it's the business practice. Even that is narrow, though, and can't apply to political speech. Clearly that's not what happened here -- the cops were just being dicks, are they usually are -- but you are more restricted when doing business than when simply speaking.
If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship. The exceptions in the US are few and narrow, and don't seem to apply here.