FWIW, the decision came from CDC and FDA. Fauci isn't in charge of either of those. (I do agree that this wasn't the right decision for the reasons you cited.)

Imagine you live paycheck-to-paycheck and don't get paid leave. Would you rather give up a few hours of pay for the J&J and take a chance on a statistically remote possibility of blood clots that might not even be related to the vaccine, or give up twice as much pay for the Pfizer/Moderna which comes with its own set of side effects?

The two-dose vaccines aren't a barrier for those who have a job, a regular schedule, and paid leave; these folks can deal with two appointments. Also the mRNA vaccines have more complex storage requirements, and the supporting healthcare infrastructure is more likely to be found in communities matching that demographic. And that demographic tends to have better outcomes in the event they contract Covid-19.

A one-dose vaccine is great for people with irregular schedules or lacking paid leave, or those who are homeless or don't have a fixed address. The storage requirements for J&J's vaccine also make it easier to distribute, even with limited healthcare infrastructure. And this demographic tends to have worse outcomes with Covid-19.

It might not affect the big picture in the U.S., but pausing the only authorized one-dose vaccine is a big deal for those relying on it.

As cyberax noted, the letters in AWS availability zones have different mappings for each account. Your us-east-1a might actually be my us-east-1b. AWS does this to avoid the exact problem that you're suggesting, that most people will pick us-east-1a over -1b or -1c because they're lazy, uninformed, or don't care, and then AWS ends up with 80% utilization in 1a, 15% in 1b, and 5% in 1c.

This needs to be downvoted. It's not the same thing. The NY law has a clear cutout for anything with a retail value of less than one dollar as long as the supplier isn't openly identified. A group of neighbors handing out paper cups of water from tap-filled water pitchers in NY to voters in line would appear to be legal. In GA that same act would land them in jail.

If one of the voters targeted by this bill left her housekeeping job to stand in line for five hours to vote, when she got back she'd be told to not come back. And if she's lucky she *might* get her last paycheck, because she doesn't have the means to fight the employer at the local or state level to get her back pay.

Of course, that assumes that she has a state ID. The state office issuing state IDs (separate from a drivers license) is open six days a week between 9 and 5. She works seven days a week, about ten hours a day including travel (public transportation), split between three different employers. And no, none of her employers give paid leave because she doesn't work enough hours with that employer. Taking a half-day off isn't an option; it's the difference being being able to pay the bills for the month and not.

Even if she could get paid leave to get the ID, she doesn't have the documents she needs. She was never given an original birth certificate from her parents. Or it was lost in a move years ago. Damaged when a water pipe burst in the apartment and it was in a box on the floor. Regardless, getting a new certificate costs money she doesn't have. And she has to visit a different office which costs time plus transportation expenses, neither of which she can afford.

Even if she could get a birth certificate, she still doesn't have the documents she needs. Her landlord pays the utility bills so she can't show an electric or water bill in her name. Her cell phone is prepaid, so no mailed bill. She doesn't have a bank account -- not that it would have much money in it anyway -- so no bank statements in the mail. And her landlord is illegally renting the place, so there's no rental agreement or rent receipts for her to establish residency with.

Voting is relatively easy today if you're privileged. For the disenfranchised, it can easily be a choice between voting or having a job; voting or putting food on the table; voting or having a roof over your head. For them, voting is not easy.

Doesn't seem to be the case. A reporter at the New York Times sold an article as a NFT and emphatically stated that the token didn't convey the article's copyright, noting that it was consistent with other NFTs in not conveying the underlying rights to the original work.

Most U.S. credit cards don't have a PIN, and the major card networks (Visa/MC/Amex/Discover) allowed retailers to waive signatures for low-dollar transactions (usually under $100) several years ago. So tap-to-pay is functionally equivalent to a dip or swipe. If anything, tap is safer because it uses a virtual card number, so if someone is skimming the POS or payment processor, your bank only has to churn the virtual number, rather than replace your physical card.

It shields my real credit card number from the retailer and payment processor. If they get compromised, I don't have to get the physical card replaced. The bank just churns the virtual number assigned for tap-to-pay and I re-register the card. As for shopping sprees, liability is usually capped at $50 and some banks set it at $0.

Because the restaurant isn't charging the customer's card, DoorDash is...Every time I pick up an Uber Eats order, the receipt has my first name and the phone number I use with Uber Eats. That's all the restaurant sees (besides the order, of course). My card gets a charge from Uber Eats, then Uber Eats pays the restaurant similar to ACH, minus 30% or whatever fee they're charging. Same as the Paypal model.

I placed an order through Uber Eats recently, the restaurant didn't have the menu updated so one of the items I ordered wasn't actually stocked. I called them (they called me but I got to them first for unrelated reasons) and they said "We don't have a way of refunding you or changing the order from our end, but we can substitute for a similarly-priced item." The restaurants really give up all control over the process when they use the food delivery companies.

Hint: Be nice to your local mom & pop restaurants and order directly through them. Even better, pay in person, because card present is usually lower fees than card not present.

There are collars to the upside, as well as downside, for listed stocks in the US. It's called Limit Up Limit Down and it's regulated by the SEC and implemented by the primary exchanges. GME is a recent example of LULD kicking in on both directions; it also happened to SNOW on its IPO day. You can go to NYSE's site and see all historical LULD trading halts they issued; it happens fairly often.

The market wide circuit breakers in the US are the only ones that work to the downside and are based on declines in the S&P 500.

Some states in the US don't even have a uniform sales tax for physical goods and services within their own borders, and the rate changes when you cross city/county lines...

For sales tax that's not necessarily true. Some states levy a consumer use tax on their residents; basically you are on the hook for paying sales tax directly to the state (typically when you file your state income tax return) for purchases that normally would have been eligible for sales tax but the seller for one reason or another doesn't collect and remit it on your behalf. So it can be an either/or, depending on your state.

If you read the law there's no domicile requirement for the ad seller. In fact there isn't even a domicile requirement for the ad buyer. The only qualification for the tax is that it is "imposed on annual gross revenues of a person derived from digital advertising services in the state." Under the law, person ~= corporation, digital advertising services == "advertisement services on a digital interface", and digital interface == "software, including a website, part of a website, or application, that a user is able to access." So it seems to be based on 1) ads that are served to devices physically located in MD, and 2) ad companies operating in MD.

FWIW the text seems to have a lot of loopholes (think licensing companies based in Ireland and the Netherlands) and unintended consequences (a firm would have to maintain and file digital ad paperwork even if they don't owe the tax).

The full lifecycle and text of this bill can be found here: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/legislation/details/hb0732?ys=2020rs

First off: The digital advertising tax wasn't originally in the bill. Legislators co-opted a bill taxing tobacco products and added the digital ad language almost a month after the text was first introduced.

Second: There had been news reports that legislators were going to add language to prohibit pass-through of the tax to ad buyers. maryland.gov doesn't show any introduced amendment proposing that and that's not part of the final text. So based on the bill text, Google et al. could charge customers a "MD Digital Advertising Recovery Fee", unless there's a separate law prohibiting something like that. Directly passing a sliding-scale, revenue-based tax would be difficult unless a firm knew they were $100m+ in revenue.

Third: The text seems to force all companies that sell at least $1m of digital ads in the state to file paperwork (e.g. tax returns) even if they don't meet the gross revenue minimum of $100m. I'm thinking a medium-sized ad firm based in MD, does a few million annually in digital ads and they have $5m in total revenue. They don't owe tax but they still have to file supporting paperwork to show they don't owe for the digital tax. One would think this is the loophole, like Irish and Dutch-domiciled holding companies.

Absence of evidence is evidence? Show me an account balance statement with margin balances, funds available, buying power and we'll see how much this person had in settled funds and margin equity today. Most brokerages increased GME (among other tickers) to 100% maintenance in the last few days, and most customer agreements allow your broker to liquidate positions not only for margin calls but also for portfolio risk, and they can do it without your permission. If you don't understand what that means, you need to be in a cash account.