Not only that, there's absolutely ZERO chance that the government is going to allow a car in public that is capable of releasing 10kpsi blasts of air. Any guesses what happens if a pedestrian happens to be behind the car when the driver fires those off?

What a disappointment. The original renderings of the Roadster 2 actually looked attractive with nice lines. Make a good looking car, make it fast, and sell them to people with the right amount of money. Then apparently Musk decided this needs to be the ill-advised inbred child of the Cybertruck and SpaceX. We've adopted an exterior aesthetic that fears the presence of curves and we've spent most of our engineering time on importing SpaceX thruster technology into a car so it can land safely if it's flying through the air.

Keep in mind that any time you perform one of these little thruster tricks you need to go get the thrust cylinders refilled, so it's not like you can do it more than a handful of times at best. So that's a huge amount of engineering, cost, and infrastructure to support a parlor trick with near zero value for the majority of the driving time. But it will certainly succeed in pushing back delivery by years!

That's probably because the average American Republican voter is an uninformed lout who will never blame or hold Republicans accountable for the outcome of their policy. They will simply deflect each crisis to the Democrats or Immigrants.

Yes, the concept of supply and demand is pretty basic, but it takes on some interesting nuance I think with BTC. BTC is, ostensibly, a currency. But it's a currency that can only buy a limited number of things UNLESS you can get someone else to purchase it from you to convert it into dollars or another currency. That's not likely to happen with any other currency or even stocks/bonds. So you can end up holding a currency that you cannot spend on things you need to buy.

Except much of the research that looks at whether alcohol causes xxxx (cancer, heart disease, obesity, etc) uses the 2oz (etc) standard. So while we aren't running trials looking at 2oz versus 4oz versus 8oz, we are often using none versus 2oz and we see a difference at that breakpoint. Repeating the research to try and find the exact point between 0-->2 seems excessive (and certainly not something the liquor industry is going to pay for!)

Wait...there's a study?

Because I'm pretty sure they just tossed out a new recommendation they pulled out of their ******.

Remember, we need Gold Standard Science and Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trials for crazy stuff like vaccines and birth control. But for things like alcohol and public health we use Good Ol' Common Sense(tm) around this country!

Is there some reason why we would have expected "payday loan apps" to be less predatory and damaging than all the payday loan services that came before? We know, without a doubt, that payday loan services like Money Tree preferentially prey on lower income and struggling individuals who cannot access more traditional and lower rate loans. But did someone actually think that just because it was an app that somehow this would not be an issue?

"No, no, we all know heroin is bad but hear me out...what if instead of having to buy it from a dealer it's dispensed from a vending machine? That makes it better, right?"

I suppose it's simply reasonable to say "verify your own holdings". For myself, out of $8,000 in dividends, $20 are unqualified. This is particularly true if you have most of your money in money markets or ETF/Mutual Funds because part of the qualification for Qualified Dividends is the holding duration of the individual security. If a Mutual Fund or ETF is rebalancing or restructuring this is going to trigger capital gains and make some of the dividends unqualified. Similarly, some money markets pay their dividend as interest while others pay it as a true dividend. So that all said, individual performance may vary...but it's definitely an oversimplification to say that "dividends are taxed as ordinary income whereas capital gains are not" since there are certainly circumstances where dividends receive favorable tax treatment, just as there are circumstances where capital gains do not (e.g all short term capital gains are taxed as regular income).

Totally reasonable point that if an individual relies on government programs and needs to remain within certain income limits, that adds a layer of complexity. I would though add that there's no reason that your mutual fund can't realize capital gains over the course of the year, both long or short term, and so if anyone is very close to the line on income cliffs, they should be paying close attention regardless of the income stream and investment portfolio.

Dividends are not taxed as regular income. If the dividend is considered a Qualified Dividend, which it often is (in my whole portfolio, I have no Unqualified dividend stocks), it is taxed at a 15% rate as long as your income is between $48k-533k and 0% if below $48k and 20% if above $533k (for unmarried single filers...feel free to pull up the numbers yourself for married filing jointly etc).

Which is to say that they're nearly identical to long term capital gains for many/most filers.

(Ok, here you go...I'll just put this here for folks: https://www.nerdwallet.com/art... )

In the US it depends on the nature of the dividend, but the majority are a Qualified Dividend and are taxed at a favorable rate similar to long term capital gains.

This is not the universal interpretation. Other parts of the Bible imply that life begins with blood and/or while still within the womb. Leviticus 17:11 for example says "The life of the flesh is in the blood". There's also Genesis 9:4 or Isaiah 49:1 to mention a couple. That blood is the repository of life or the soul is also one of the concepts that forms the JW prohibition against blood transfusion.

While I certainly think that "biblically" should have absolutely zero relevance when we're talking about science, medicine, or public policy...but you're going to find plenty of Christians and Catholics that are going to argue that life begins well before "first breath".

The institution I'm affiliated with has put a STOP on the initiation of any new clinical trials for the next 12 month (minimum). We've closed labs and laid off workforces. That means there is no new research for a new grad student or undergrad to sign up for or join. Restarting that work will be difficult and carefully considered, especially if it continues to be apparent that those labs will get defunded as soon as there's a conservative majority/Exec in power again. Serious scientists will carefully consider if they should invest time and energy in work in a country where their funding and work will be in jeopardy every time power shifts.

Compared to other countries that are more than happy to fill the vacuum we've left behind, I don't think we have the "momentum" you think we have!

There's an awful lot of counties in this country with mean incomes in the poverty range...and they only need so many plumbers, construction workers, and welders (and so many engineers, programmers, doctors, etc as well). "Everyone get a trade school degree!" sounds like an easy fix promoted by either people with enough money that they want more laborers, or people who feel like people wanting a higher degree are "too good for hard work". If you love the trades, 100% go into them, but it's not a magic fix that will suddenly have everyone buying new cars and affording a house.

Sure, the system may become less hostile in the future, but I don't know that the rebound will be as fast as you imply. Universities are currently shutting down research labs as their grants are pulled. Professors, researchers, and scientists may have to look elsewhere for work and that may include either Industry or other countries that are willing to still invest in science and research. Without those STEM professionals, the desire to study at a University under their mentorship decreases. When we suddenly become "friendly" again to foreign students and researchers, will there be attractive opportunities for them to seek out at those universities?

There was a time where the United States was actively trying to recruit bright and creative STEM individuals from all over the world to do work here. Now we're actively fostering a climate that pushes them elsewhere...are we really going to wonder then in 5 years why China, or France, or India is making scientific or technological advancements that we're missing out on?

Harris might be bad. Trump might be bad.

But Trump won not because the alternative was a "greater train wreck" but because Republican voters (and legislators) have shown repeatedly that they will fall in line and vote as they're told if that's what it takes to win. Democrats whine and wring their hands and complain that their candidate could be better, could have a stronger position, only gave them 3 bullet points when they wanted 4, and drove 5 miles instead of 4 or 6.