> There's no indication of the circumstances of their birth

Table C1, page 45.

This is also the Cornell University Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, where the median family income for students is over $150K, so certainly none of them are poor.
=Smidge=

They set up an experiment with "workers" who get compensated based on either luck or performance, so some workers get more than others but not necessarily because they did a better job. The students actually being studied are then asked to redistribute the earnings if they want, in either direction (e.g. give workers they feel worked harder more, or give workers they feel were exceptionally lucky less)

One of the variables the the experiment is how much it costs to redistribute the earnings. For example, you can take $1 form worker A and give it to worker B, but if the efficiency cost is 50% then worker B only gets $0.50 and the other $0.50 is lost. This lost value is the efficiency cost.

Basically they're saying that the likelihood and amount of redistribution is strongly dependent on how much it costs to implement it. The more expensive it is to transfer wealth, the more disparity there is between the haves and have-nots.

Overall the paper seems to show that people born with a silver spoon up their ass not only see inequality as less of a problem, but are severely less inclined to do anything about it at all if the solution isn't literal magic. Quelle surprise.
=Smidge=

Public schools don't fail int he same way that private ones do. They can't, because they aren't businesses.

It's really sad to have to explain, over and over, that operating public services as for-profit businesses - or worse, replacing public services with for-profit businesses - is literally the whole reason shit is falling apart. The peak of American civilization also had the highest tax rates for the wealthy and the most extensive and functional public services. That was not a coincidence.
=Smidge=

> I can tell that you have no idea what you're talking about because the vast majority of public K-12 school funding is through local taxes, not federal funding.

About 13% of public schools are funded federally. You say "the vast majority" as if to handwave 13% of their funding as unsubstantial. Most importantly, this funding goes to schools that do not have the local tax revenue to fully support them.

> The federal government has almost no control over it so they can't cut funding

The federal Dept. of Education plays a key role in ensuring equitable access to education. You know how they exert control over local schools? By creating and enforcing (or NOT enforcing) policies, because their job is ultimately to implement and enforce laws created by Congress that apply to public education.

> There are also many states that have charter schools that perform better for less money than the public schools, so it's not a money problem.

Charter schools have an abysmal reputation; approximately 1 in 4 charter schools end up out of business within 5 years, leaving their students in the lurch and those who paid for it with empty wallets.

It's just a scam to funnel public money into private hands and push indoctrination. Look at all the enshittification that's happened and is currently happening in the name of chasing profits - we cannot afford that in education, financially or culturally.
=Smidge=

> HOW ABOUT we use a lifting body like an airship instead? ...says the person completely ignorant of the history of airships. There's a reason they aren't used for anything.

It's not immediately clear that a larger airplane would need a larger airport. The size of the runway needed really depends on the minimum speed needed to take off and stay aloft, and how quickly it can reach that speed from a standstill. A huge plane with large, efficient wings and powerful engines that can take off in 5000 feet of runway with a 100+ ton load can still use just about any existing airport.

Meanwhile you can't even get an airship out of its hangar if it's a bit windy, and it's not like a construction site for wind turbines would have any strong wind, right?
=Smidge=

Not only has it been done before, we now have drone technology that make it even easier to synchronize multiple aircraft.

A dozen extra large drones, some slings, and a chase helicopter with the operator. Seems very doable.
=Smidge=

Who said to doesn't count as renewable?

=Smidge=

> Did you actually read the NHTSA paper?

Not all 692 pages of course, but I read enough of it to know that if this is your comeback, you didn't even LOOK at it.

You throw shade at a paper you clearly disagree with for no reason you're able to articulate, comparing the authors to kindergartners and clowns, and you can't even be assed to read more than a headline for yourself. Fuckin' weak. Actual kindergartners have better reading skills.
=Smidge=

> Assume? is this not a research paper, how about ... you know ... do research?

That's a hilarious thing to say immediately before doing 30 seconds of Google searching. Did you happen to notice that number in parenthesis in that portion you quoted? Do you suppose it was a hyperlink for a reason? That's called a 'citation' - it's when you are referencing some other publication or data source, and you want to be clear about where you got your information.

"30 NHTSA. Final Rulemaking for Model Years 2024â"2026 LightDuty Vehicle Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards 2022; https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nh.... (accessed August 20, 2024).There is no corresponding record for this reference."

We can then load up that PDF, and find that section 4.3 "Estimating Total Vehicle Miles Traveled" lays out in detail the methodology for determining vehicle mileage and its effects on vehicle efficiency. And if you're somehow not satisfied with that, the cited paper also has its own citations to look into.

THAT is how you do research, oshkrozz, not just asking Google. I bet you stopped reading at the AI summary too lul.
=Smidge=

Can you provide an example of this happening? Just tried it now and they definitely don't let you upload webp, and this is the first time I've ever heard anyone even mention file type conversion of ANY kind other than mp4 to gifv (which the mp4 version still exists...)

=Smidge=

As a chronic Imgur user I can confirm two things;

1) Imgur does not share your images to others unless you explicitly select "Share with community." There is a separate field to copy just the link to the image you upload.

2) Imgur will not recode your image to webp. As far as I'm aware, Imgur doesn't even support webp - you definitely cannot upload them so I can't imagine they'd serve them.

=Smidge=

Can't release the software.

Perhaps you could write an article explaining, in suspiciously great detail, how the software works, in good faith that nobody would attempt to actually recreate it and release it anonymously in defiance of the law...

=Smidge=

> but my understanding is that no new projects will be approved on "productive farmland".

And that's an accurate but shallow read on it.

The way it's framed makes it sound like we're paving over large open fields once used for crops and installing solar panels and wind turbines. While wind turbines often share land with crops (they take up a negligible amount of land in comparison), we're definitely not doing that with solar.

The practical reality is any land associated with a farm is considered "productive farmland." So basically if you own a farm you are not getting any help installing renewable energy anywhere on your property.
=Smidge=

> Hint - a retired person, a lazy ass person perpetually on his brother's sofa and a kid are all not included.

> Anyway the current labor force in the US is about 170 million, the population is 340 million

340 million includes children and retired, dumbass. Are children to be included in the statistic or not? if you're going to try and use labor participation to back into a number of people who drive cars, would it not make sense to be consistent about NOT including the population that literally can't drive a car in the first place?

Maybe cite some sources; it might help you keep your thoughts straight.
=Smidge=

Open it up. Make sure it is wired correctly and nothing is cross-wired or left disconnected. Check the wire gauge and type. Make sure all the connections are well made.

Do not trust those pop-out "circuit breakers" (that are almost certainly not rated for 20A).

You might also want to get an electrician to verify the outlet you intent to use it with is wired properly, with a full size neutral and dedicated ground.

If you are even remotely familiar with the kinds of cheap electrical death traps that come out of random Chinese factories and are actually worried about an electrical fire in your home, you would NOT be using the cheapest lump of plastic you could find off Amazon. If you insist on using such an adapter, do a little research and find something trustworthy.
=Smidge=