It's an argument of not hiding externalities. By requiring the producers to take care of cleaning up (part of) the pollution, the clean-up cost will get factored into the price (so the competition is not at an unfair disadvantage) and you ensure it actually gets done. That said, at least until now the carbon capture implementations I have read about haven't exactly had stellar results. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/en... or https://reneweconomy.com.au/do... (although I admit I haven't followed it recently, so maybe massive strides forward have been made since then)

If I end up having to pay for your lack of preparedness, which I am, yes.

They have enough other characters that Mickey and Minnie have become obsolete. I was just there and we saw those two in only very limited circumstances.

You did not in any way explain how the quantitative easing/stimulus/whatever-you-want-to-call-it of the past couple of years is causing the current inflation spike. You really think everyone saved up that money and is now using it to buy gas and oil, thereby driving up demand and prices?

When a government that directly control their central bank spends money, they have their central bank create it out of nothing. When they tax, the money they collect gets destroyed again. It's not useful to think of them as a household budget with "a certain amount of trillions", because not a single household can create its own money supply, force others to use it, or tax it back.

While it's absolutely true that such governments cannot create an infinite supply of money without massive causing inflation, nor get rid of taxes at will without causing inflation (hi Liz Truss), it's much less simple than "bigger money supply = more inflation" (as the past couple of years have shown). The current inflation is not driven by too big a supply of money causing massive spikes in consumer demand, but by high energy prices (Russian/Ukraine war) and still not fully recovered supply chains and production after covid.

Furthermore raising interest rates is what is more likely to trigger a recession than not: it will make more people default on their mortgages and unable to pay other bills, which will have a domino effect on other spending and businesses. Inflation has that effect as well, but central banks cannot fight this kind of inflation in a meaningful way by raising interest rates. It's not going to stop Putin, reduce energy prices (although I'll grant you that kicking people out of their houses and business shutting down will reduce demand for electricity and gas on those premises), or fix supply chain problems.

A more in-depth explanation: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk...

I'm in my 40s and in a leadership role at my company; I refuse to use or accept business cards from anyone and have for more than 20 years. There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, that anyone should use them in 2022.

There is no conclusive evidence yet one way or the other. The CDC lists what we do know, which seems sufficient to apply the precautionary principle for now.

In particular, it doesn't work for PFOS.

A conspiracy theory with "hundreds of interactions" on Facebook and Twitter sounds like something on the fringe of fringes. The only agenda here seems to write a random fluff piece, or in the best case a hook to get people to read something about important science.

Or it could be another instance of Discordianism's Operation Mindfuck, one that will hopefully be less successful than the one attributing everything that's wrong with the world to a hidden cabal of Illuminati.

Facebook analyses what you like (click on) and serves you more and more of the same, indeed locking you into a mini-universe of like-minded people and messaging. I don't think that is comparable to (presumably) using a search engine to look for case law related to a particular issue and ending up on a Wikipedia page.

They didn't necessarily take what was written about the case on Wikipedia at face value. It may simply have served as a way for them to get to know about its existence. That said, I agree it's troubling that Wikipedia presence apparently influences the likelihood of a case getting cited.

They're not saying that any and all alcohol consumption before the age of 40 is harmful. They merely say it has no health benefits. Additionally:

Since Slashdot started, its editors have posted hundreds of thousands of stories. What's one thing I've taken from this? It's normal for posters not to ask harder questions about the site, so they usually miss out on a chance to (i) de-risk their crypto gambles and (ii) to increase the chances they'll like posting here.

  Does the website have duplicate detection? This is the single most important thing a site can do to survive and grow.
  "Do you ever question if you have duplicate detection?"
  "When did you reach duplicate detection? How did you know?"
  "What do you need to do to get duplicate detection?"
  "Do you ever question if you have duplicate detection?"
  "What's your duplicate rate? What was it a year ago?"
  "How many daily duplicate posts do you have?"

This is the context which should have been added to the blurb IMHO. Over the course of 2021, Google was doing ~5.6B per day.

While 2.5B in a year is admirable, particularly because competition in the search space is incredibly important; Brave isn't even making a dent.

My point was not that public companies are saints (although I disagree with your oversimplification). My point was that there is absolutely no legal obligation for them to always put monetary gain first, which is what the OP claimed and many other people often as well.