Italy and Japan have shrinking populations. We would too, if it weren't for immigration. However our population growth rate is still low, and if it were any lower we'd be facing serious economic and social challenges. Sure, a shrinking population would drop housing prices, but we are far from having so many people there isn't space to fit them. Our real problem is seventy years of public policy aimed at the elimination of "slums" and the prevention of their reemergence.

If you think about it, "slum" is just a derogatory word for a neighborhood with a high concentration of very affordable housing. Basically policy has by design eliminated the most affordable tier of housing, which eliminates downward price pressure on higher tiers of housing. Today in my city a median studio apartment cost $2800; by the old 1/5 of income rule that means you'd need an income of $168k. Of course the rule now is 30% of income, so to afford a studio apartment you need "only" 112k of income. So essentially there is no affordable housing at all in the city, even for young middle class workers. There is, however a glut of *luxury* housing.

In a way, this is what we set out to accomplish: a city where the only concentrations of people allowed are wealthy people. We didn't really think it through; we acted as if poor to middle income people would just disappear. In reality two things happened. First they got pushed further and further into the suburbs, sparking backlash by residents concerned with property values. And a lot of people, even middle-class young people, end up in illegal off-the-book apartments in spaces like old warehouses and industrial spaces.

And how much does the engine/transmission/gas tank weigh in a fossil fuel car?

There's a lot of mythology around who Trump voters are. Part of it is that statistics can be confusing, especially if you're prone to jump to conclusions. Yes Trump wins the voters without a college degree, and people without college degrees tend to make less money, but we can't leap to the conculsion that Trump voters are poor. In fact, data shows Trump lost the $50k and under income group solidly in both 2016 and 2020. In 2016 he won every income group greater than $50k, although only *strongly* in the $50k -$99k group. In 2020 he solidly lost every income group betlow $100k, but but won the over $100k group by an enormous 12 point margin.

Putting it all together, Trump's core voter group are people with limited educational attainment who are economically comfortable of (good for them) well off without having a college degree. However he doesn't own any particular socioeconomic group; really elections are determined by changes in turnout in key swing states. There was strong turnout among Trump's *share* of $50-$99 ke voters in 2016; I don't think many of those voters changed their mind, but their compatriots who sat 2016 out came out to vote in 2020.

Just because the cigarette industry pictured doctors recommending smoking in its advertising didn't mean that *all* doctors, or even most thought smoking was healthy for you. This was largely in the 30s and 40s when they took advantage of a positive attitude toward science and particular medical science. They began to pull back from this after 1950 when evidence was mounting for the link between smoking and cancer, for fear of pushback from the medical community.

What does this have to do with lab grown meat?

Yo Mr. Constitutional Expert, which one fits best? "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;" or "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,"? Maybe "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."???

Ah yes the global elites, not like Harvard- and Yale-educated governor of a state. He's just plain simple folks.

I am so sick of these dumbass conservative conspiracy theories.

Over his termination, not the whistleblowing. The deposition wasn't to get new information, it was so Boeing could try and trick him into saying something they could use against him in the court.

He had disclosed it already, the deposition was about his termination.

Exactly! This...ain't it.

Who was that guest editor who wrote an editorial about how replaceable battery were battery banks? Was this written by the same guy?

People can already easily buy bluetooth accessories that do this well...a bluetooth speaker, keyboards, game controller, etc. (The idea of add-on lenses is stupid).

So what is this guy arguing? That Apple should promote it more? That there should be official Apple licensed bluetooth game controllers? That users should be more into it? That app developers should do a better job supporting it?

The problem with the conspiracy theories for both whistleblowers is that in both cases they actually disclosed the damaging information already.

They aren't going to reduce the capacity of the battery just for the battery-eaters of the world.

Besides, you can't really "neutralize" toxic metals.

I don't know if they could be converted into safe compounds but once the battery contents get dispersed inside a stomach you'd need a lot of "neutralizing agent" to make sure you got all the metals - many, many times the entire capacity of the battery.

Damn, I won't be buying any more of those then.

Surely I can't be the only person who sucks on their batteries to see how much charge is left.