When one of my grandfathers died, none of his children or ex-wives wanted anything to do with a funeral or burial arrangements. My parents found a place that accepted his alcoholism-ravaged body, and they took care of things. I’m not sure of the details, and seems likely it wasn’t a medical school, but some organization took the body “last minute”.
Cats kill huge numbers of birds. Most small bird species have high reproduction rates, and crowding results in higher death rates from increased disease and parasite spread, competition for food, and all the good shelter from predators being taken. Higher death rates from one cause (say, cats) results in less death rates from crowding-related causes. I haven’t seen any evidence that, in general, cat hunting ends up actually impacting bird populations.
Specific species of birds in certain locations have been harmed by cats: the Wikipedia page list several examples in Australia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife). So it’s good to have local awareness if there’s a particular vulnerable population. But in general, keeping cats inside is only for their own safety and won’t impact bird population one way or another.
It may not be abstractly good for cats to be allowed outdoors (my family growing up had a cat eaten by the neighbors dogs, a cat get hit by a car, multiple cats get serious injuries from fights with neighborhood cats, etc.) But having been in a household with a series of cats that only went out when they asked to be let out: they ask to be let out every day. It is completely inconsistent with my experience that a cat would “never want to go outside again”.
I see so much argument around UBI with the assumption it has to be enough to live off or it’s worthless. But Alaska’s system makes a real difference to reducing the number of people living below poverty level, even being just a small fraction of what is required to live there for a year. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pop4.398
Although not designed as a social program to redistribute income, the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) has been reducing poverty by providing equal annual payments to nearly all state residents for over 40 years. …the PFD reduced the number of Alaskans with incomes below the US poverty threshold by 20%–40%… The effect of the PFD has been even larger for vulnerable populations. The PFD has reduced poverty rates of rural Indigenous Alaskans from 28% to less than 22%, and has played an important role in alleviating poverty among seniors and children… up to 50% more Alaska children—15% instead of 10%—would be living in poor families without PFD income. The poverty-ameliorating effects of the PFD have lessened somewhat since 2000, as dividend amounts adjusted for inflation have been declining.
An appeals court blocked the rule, and Trump’s FTC had argued in support of it. They haven’t appealed the ruling, though. https://www.businessinsider.com/ftc-blocks-subscription-trap-click-to-cancel-ftc-rule-2025-7
Trump’s FTC filed a brief in March supporting the negative option and click-to-cancel rule, writing that consumers “face unnecessary obstacles from sellers who force them to endure multiple phone calls, long hold times, and countless automated menus. Studies show that most Americans pay hundreds annually for unwanted subscriptions.”
FTC’s commissioner Mark Meador took a different tone last week when he wrote in a post on X following the 8th Circuit’s ruling: “The FTC’s click-to-cancel rule, which would have made it much easier for consumers to get rid of unwanted online subscriptions, isn’t going into effect for one reason: the Biden FTC cut corners and didn’t follow the law. Process matters.”
This suggests that the FTC likely won’t appeal the ruling…
Ah, I missed part where home flippers left the market. I’m not totally following the chain of logic after that, but I am OK with that.
I am not convinced using regulation (tax incentive or otherwise) to drive larger landlords out of the market would improve the experience of the average renter. Some small landlords are terrible. With proper regulation, some ginormous ones are good (countries that do public housing well - government-run is bigger than any corporate landlord).
…the mortgage is lower risk for the bank… allowing them to extend those loans to more people
That was the part I meant about this proposal increasing demand by giving the average person more purchasing power.
Multiple strategies makes sense. Quadratic property tax is a new one to me, and it confused Google. Is it like a progressive tax, where larger valuations are taxed at a higher rate?
When the underlying problem is insufficient supply in the locations people want to live, anything that gives average person more purchasing power (such as making banks comfortable with larger loans) just drives up the price even higher.
Densifying metro areas (the places people are moving to) is the only real solution. Otherwise the price has to be unaffordable for the average person, to drive them into finding a way to live in a more rural area or to put up with a multiple-roommate living arrangement.
The cost is a big turn off for most people. At grocery stores near me, the Impossible and Beyond products are more than double the price of the meat products they are imitating. In part because livestock feed is hugely subsidized by the government.
If the plant-based meat alternatives could gain efficiency through scale and experience to lower the cost below animal meat, we would see way more people trying them and finding what dishes they work best in, which would feed back into scaled market demand. But I don’t see that kind of explosive growth potential at current price levels.
Growing meat cells in a lab and selling them as food is illegal in the states you reference.
What Beyond does in processing plant material into something that resembles some meat products is still legal everywhere.
Because the only information that isn’t already public is speculation (a mix of outright wrong and unknown if wrong but unprovable in court), victim and witness names, and maybe some investigative techniques. Releasing them would expose victims and witnesses to doxing, feed conspiracy theory on the speculation (including the known-wrong stuff, but to many people “being in the file” gives it some kind of aura), and let future traffickers know how Epstein was finally taken down so they can run a tighter operation and avoid getting caught.
Or you could soak it in prescription strength urea for a couple of days to get the nail to fall off. Less collateral damage that way.
OP might be talking about a procedure where a podiatrist or dermatologist kills the mis-growing edges of the nail root. The remaining root grows a narrower nail, but hopefully a straighter one. Sometimes the process doesn’t work the first time (hard to judge how much cell-kill stuff will get just the edges and not damage the middle) and has to be repeated.
It’s a war of attrition at this point, with Ukraine providing almost all the people to become casualties but highly dependent on foreign aid for weapons, ammunition, intelligence, and continued sanctions enforcement on Russia. If either the foreign support or the domestic supply of soldiers falls short before the Russian economy collapses, Russia gets to keep the occupied land. If the first break is the ruble tanks to the point desperate poor foreigners stop signing up en masse to be cannon fodder in the Russian army, Ukraine could realistically take back the territory they lost.
Arguably Bernie got as many primary votes as he did (a good showing but a legitimate loss) because inside politics had cleared the field of more compelling challengers to Clinton. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged
That’s interesting, I hadn’t realized they affected some people that way. I have noticed their “beef” and “pork” products include a lot of fat, maybe the greasy slipperiness contributes to the effect? I’d like to think use in dishes where the other ingredients are low-fat would balance things out, but if not that’s sad for that brand.
I am sure it will enjoy economies of scale. Lab grown meat is currently something like 1000x the cost of animal-grown meat: I am confident they can get that down to 10x, maybe single digits. I am equally confident the inherent inefficiency of growing muscle cells without the integrated functions of the rest of the animal mean the lab cost will never be lower.
The barrier here is that hundreds of millions of years of animal evolution has extremely optimized their form, and the nature of growing only the muscle cells de-optimizes the system. Animals have immune systems; lab cells have to be kept in a sterile environment, a significant cost. Animals have digestive systems and can power cell growth and all other functions from common plant materials; lab cells have to be fed pre-digested and carefully proportioned material, a significant cost. Animals have circulatory systems that efficiently perfuse oxygen and nutrients, and remove waste; lab cell containers have to be centrifuged in small containers because the forces required in large containers damage the cells. And so on.
Lab-grown cuts are sold as a luxury good now, and I expect as the price comes down from 1000x animal-grown meat to more like 10x animal-grown meat they will become more widely eaten by rich conspicuous consumers.
The real opportunity for equal-tasting, cheaper, better for the environment “meat” is development of and efficiencies gained by scaling the lines of plant-based imitations like what Impossible and it’s competitors are doing.
Lab grown animal cells will always be more expensive than animal-grown animal cells. Animals have immune systems; lab cells have to be kept in a sterile environment, a significant cost. Animals have digestive systems and can power cell growth and all other functions from common plant materials; lab cells have to be fed pre-digested and carefully proportioned material, a significant cost. Animals have circulatory systems that efficiently perfuse oxygen and nutrients, and remove waste; lab cell containers have to be centrifuged in small containers because the forces required in large containers damage the cells. And so on.
The real potential for equal-tasting, cheaper, better-for-environment cuts is in plant-based imitations like what Impossible brand and its competitors are doing.
These laws banning lab grown cells are banning designer lab-grown cuts as a luxury good. Once that market matures, I am sure the wealthy people who jump on the conspicuous consumption bandwagon will not have any problem getting the law repealed or exceptions carved out for them.
I think they were trying to demonstrate the second type of dot should be increments of 10 - the missed step in the original answer - and both messed it up (started with an increment of 20 as you pointed out) and extended it way beyond what was required for the problem at hand.