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.

Trump won because of two things...one of which you mention and I agree with. He acknowledges problems and promises to fix them. Unfortunately, he doesn't have real solutions, which he proved last time he was in office. It's easy to say "I'll fix it" when you don't have to prove it. He can then not fix things but claim that it was someone else's fault, and his constituents will nod their heads in agreement.

The other reason Trump won is that say what you will about Democrats and Republicans, but Republicans have no problem whatsoever with voting for what they're told to vote for, no matter how they feel about it. GOP Senators can sit in their seats and complain about something over and over, but in the end they push the button for "yes" or "no" the way they're told to do. GOP constituents might not like a lot of the things Trump says, but they'll tell themselves he doesn't mean it, or they'll just ignore it and vote "yes" anyway. The Democrats whine and wring their hands and want a candidate who is a golden unicorn with magical powers to fix the world with a snap of their fingers...they don't get it and they bicker and argue and vote for 50 different things and get trampled. I was reading one Democrat's complaint that Harris had "too much baggage" and "a poor record" and so they just couldn't support her...can you imagine a Republican being concerned about "too much baggage" to vote for Trump (if they even were willing to acknowledge that any of that baggage might be true and not Big Media Lies)

The "first thing" is not necessarily Miranda rights. It's not even required to be the "first thing". Miranda is required once in custody and prior to interrogation. In a cop car and "just talking"? Well...'Your honor, I wasn't interrogating Mr Johnson, I just noticed he seemed upset and asked him how he was doing and why he was crying, then he just told me this stuff'.

Just because something is in every movie and TV show has them doesn't mean that's how the real world works. Moreover, that probably doesn't do anyone a service, if I've watched cops read the Miranda rights to folks on TV, and they haven't said them to me, maybe I could assume that I'm not being interrogated yet. Or maybe I could assume that since they haven't been said that nothing I say is admissible in court and can mouth off. Who knows? The point being, the Miranda rights aren't some magic set of words that can iron-clad make things better or worse.

Also, I'm not sure why you find one lie (your buddy confessed) ok but another (we have fingerprints) is not. Lying is either OK, or it's not. As soon as you start deciding which lies are ok and which aren't, I think you're firmly on the slippery slope.

Who would want their only version of important cards in a wallet or bag susceptible to damage, theft, or loss.
Imagine being stranded without your government ID or money after an accident because your wallet was dropped, forgotten, lost, or stolen. Or just forgotten at home.

We see this all the time working in medicine. Everyone thinks they're the exception. I tell you that you might have a 1% chance of leaving the ICU alive and yet you and your family want every single thing done...because you're a fighter, you're exceptional, you're the strongest person anyone knows, and you're going to beat this thing.

I tell you that individuals using the phone are 23 times more likely to suffer an accident, but you're convinced that you have the necessary skills and attention to eliminate that risk.

Humans' ability to judge risk and probability sucks.

In my parallel universe of working in medicine...just telling you how we actually use these words in practice.

https://www.mayoclinicproceedi...

I acknowledge that the etymology of the word is more supportive of the antibacterial category. But, as mentioned, at least in my place of practice, we use antibiotics as a broad classification and then specify what the target is (e.g. "No changes to antibiotics today. He remains on acyclovir for antifungal coverage, fluconazole for antifungal coverage, and levofloxacin for antibacterial coverage.")

How about this though...I utterly agree with you that the sentence "your body temp raise from antibiotics fighting killing off virus" is nonsensical. Your guess is as good as mine on that one from the OP.

Antibiotics can kill viruses, if you classify viruses as "alive"...which is not by any means a consensus...so let's go with "viable".

What you are hopefully thinking of is "antibacterials" which kill bacteria only. The broader term of "antibiotics" refers to agents that fight biological sources and includes antifungals, antivirals, and antibacterials.