I’m going to disagree. Water, alone, is about a B+, maybe an A-. If you’ve ever been working out really intensely, to the point where you feel nauseous and could drink a liter of water and still be desperately thirsty, then you’ll understand that you also need to get electrolytes, things like sodium, potassium, and magnesium. The mineral content in plain water is too low for that; a sugar-free (preferably unsweetened) sports drink is going to be better for you than water alone.
Trump is old. Republicans have been stressing how old Biden is–and using his life-long speech impediment as evidence–but Trump trails Biden by only four years of age. They’re both at an age where you start seeing a sharp divergence in cognitive abilities, where some people take a nosedive into dementia and senility, while other people retain their mental faculties while their body fails. Trump seems to be the former.
Trump appears to be suffering from a serious cognitive decline since he was last president. He was never the sharpest spoon in the drawer, but it’s bad now. If he’s still alive in five years, I don’t think he’ll be capable of doing anything other than drooling on himself.
Marriage is a partnership, and both parties need to be contributing. If one person is expected to work 8+ hours a day outside of the home–plus commute, etc.–then the other person needs to be doing the things that keep the household operating. The gender of the people don’t matter; if my wife works as an attorney, and I am a househusband, that means that yeah, I’m doing the cleaning, the laundry, paying the bills, pet care, and all the other things that need to be done while she’s at work. Because housework is my job.
TBQH, I should be able to accomplish the day-to-day tasks required to keep a household from sliding into chaos within 10-12 hours in a day. That doesn’t mean that the spouse that works outside the home won’t have to help with irregular chores. But hey, if I sit around on my ass all day and play video games while my wife is at work, and then expect that we’re going to work together to get general household shit done when she gets home, then I’m a huge asshole.
Money alone isn’t going to make me happy. Yeah, it removes a lot of one type of stress. But it can also be a trap. Like, I’m doing solidly okay in my job, but it’s enough that I can’t easily quit and start over in a different career, even though I stopped caring about this one a decade ago. And a high-paying job can come with a lot of other stressors, things that keep you working harder and longer hours than you otherwise would.
$100k would probably seem pretty good for a long time, given where I currently live. If I had to live in NYC, I’d probably say more like $500k.
That’s genuinely one of the things people look for; iPhones are incredibly dense designs, in a very sleek, smooth, light package, and people love them. A very basic phone case and a screen saver adds nearly half the OE thickness of the phone to the package, and look how many people forgo those, even on a phone that’s $1500. If I added that much thickness to a phone that started out at .5" thick, it would end up feeling like I was carrying a brick on my pocket all the time.
I would still take the brick with replaceable battery though.
Yeah, no. I’m an Android user, and have been for about a decade, but Apple makes good products. I think that Apple is overpriced, I don’t like their walled garden, but they’re still good. My wife had an iPhone 8 up until this year, and I’d gone through multiple Samsung and other phones in the same time period that all died due to hardware failures.
Integrating the battery saves a small amount of space and weight. That makes the phone very slightly thinner and lighter, which is what most people seem to prefer. Same with not having expandable memory. IMO it’s a bad tradeoff, but I still miss physical keyboards.
Politicians constantly talk about stopping the illegal immigrants that are coming from Mexico, but putting a wall has never and will never be a solution since the reason why so many displaced keep coming across the border is mostly to escape the crime, corruption, inequality, and violence of they have to live in their home...
All I can do is point to how much power the mob amassed in the US during prohibition, and how long they held that power after prohibition ended. Sure, their revenue took a hit, but they moved fairly smoothly into other areas, and corrupted other power structures in order to build and maintain illicit revenue streams. It wasn’t until the 80s and 90s that the mob families in NYC really saw significant consequences.
As an example? Mozarella cheese on pizza. That was fully controlled by the mob for a long time.
Gambling should never be considered a legit business. IMO casinos et al. should be shut down, for the same reason that payday lenders should be beaten to death in the streets: they’re fundamentally predatory businesses.
The problem with prostitution and organized crime is that it’s not victimless once the mob gets involved. “Bitch better have my money” is a threat; you pay the pimp, or you get beaten, and possibly killed. You want to hire an independent escort? I’m fine with that. But significant amounts of prostitution involve sex trafficking, esp. “agencies” that constantly advertise “new girls”.
All of the businesses that the mob–or any organized criminal gang–is in end up increasing costs due to corruption, and involve the threat of violence if anyone disrupts their money. People that try to compete in sectors controlled by criminal groups tend to end up dead very, very quickly, regardless of what the nature of the business is.
That’s… Not a good argument. Child pornography and prostitution is illegal because it’s morally reprehensible, and incredibly, profoundly harmful to children. Same with murder, robbery, theft, etc. By definition, anything that is illegal is going to be done–or controlled–only by people that are criminals.
Does prohibition stop those things entirely? No, of course it doesn’t. But it gives society tools to fight against them in a way that decriminalizing does not.
Legalization of prostitution is a problem by itself, because the regulatory costs end up being borne by the sex workers (more on that in a tic). For prostitutes that are working at a subsistence level or only doing sex work occasionally as a stop-gap–which is the majority of voluntary prostitution–that’s not going to work. And what do you do, for instance, when a registered sex worker suddenly tests positive for HIV, or hepatitis C? Revoke their license, and then…? Legalizing doesn’t eliminate trafficking, it just pushes the prices for trafficked prostitutes down, because trafficked prostitutes are slaves.
There are definitely harm-reduction models that can, and do, work for sex work, but legalization and regulation–when that regulatory costs are paid by either the sex worker or the customer–will not work the way you think for harm reduction. For the system to work as intended, you would also need things like national single-payer healthcare (…that isn’t constantly getting funding slashed by conservatives), and licensing that was both on-demand and free to the licensee, and you would need something to deal with the loss of income if they contracted an incurable STI. (Otherwise they would continue working, which would be a public health risk.) Inspections, compliance measures, et al. could not be a cost borne by the sew worker/clients or else you’d see non-compliance with regulatory measures. Most sex-worker advocates call for decriminalization rather than legalization/regulation because that’s the model that moves the most risk away from the sex worker, but you do need to also balance the needs of the worker against the the needs of society to a degree.
I don’t take a stance on either from a morality basis.
In regards to gambling, I see it as a fundamentally predatory business model that preys on the people that are least able to afford it. If a rich guy wants to blow a million dollars on blackjack, I don’t fucking care, that’s not my problem. If a poor person is buying $500 in scratchers because that’s they’re only hope for excaping poverty, that’s a problem. Or a retired person that pushes a button as fast as they can on a slot machine, burning through their retirement savings, because that’s the only thing that lights up their dopamine receptors anymore. And there’s a lot more of the latter two than the former. There are also a whoooooole lot of people with gambling problems, and a person that’s blowing all their money on gambling ends up becoming a problem for the people around them, as they are no longer able to take care of their own needs.
The only issue I see with prostitution–aside from the fact that a not insignificant amount is from trafficked victims–is the public health risks. Given that healthcare in the US is outrageously expensive, there’s not a great way for people that are usually working at a near subsistence level to treat STIs. And, for certain STIs (HIV, hepatitis C), they are strongly disincentivized in regards to informing customers, as there’s not cure and long-term treatment is deeply burdensome.
did you know that Cocaine and Methamphetamine are not schedule 1 drugs
Yes. Cocaine and meth are both schedule II, which is used for drugs with a high probability of abuse, but still have recognized medical uses. (Marijuana is currently schedule I, but I believe that the FDA has been asked to re-evaluate it an move it to schedule III, which would make decriminalization much easier, and would mean that it would no longer be a prohibiting factor for buying a firearm.) Cocaine is–or was–used for surgery in highly vascular areas (esp. nose and sinus surgery) because it acts as a vasoconstrictor. Amphetamines used to be issued to soldiers, esp. pilots, that needed to be alert and focused for long periods of time. See also: Aimo Koivunen. The fact that certain drugs do have legitimate medical uses doesn’t mean that the abuse/addiction is not a material problem. Try chatting with anyone that has been prescribed anxiolytic medication, and has tried to titrate their dose down, or discontinue their use entirely (same goes for certain SSRIs, TBH). Yes, drugs are a personal choice, right up until they’re functionally not a choice any more because you’ll suffer serious physiological effects from cessation. And it’s not like the US has a great track record of providing effective assistance for people that want to get cleaned up. Full legalization or all recreational drugs, without also building the necessary social supports, would create far more problems than it would solve.
Gambling: Legal gambling doesn’t stop illegal gambling. Like dog fights, cock fights (which–disappointingly–involve chickens), or people that are out of money and credit; they’re still going exist. It would be healthier for society to make gambling unpopular, rather than squeezing every last bit of revenue out people that usually can’t afford it.
Prostitution: Legalizing under the Nevada model does nothing to illegal prostitution, because the Nevada model puts it out of financial reach for most of the clientele and restricts the locations to places that the clientele usually aren’t (e.g., they’re a long way out of the city, and you have to drive several hours from Vegas to get to the closest one). An (illegal) independent escort in Las Vegas will typically cost $350-500 per hour, and quite possibly far, far more. A sex worker at a legal brothel will easily cost more than $1000 for the same time period. A sex worker controlled by a pimp is going to be $200 or less, and have less ability–or no ability–to refuse acts that s/he doesn’t want to do. The cost of compliance with regulations is on the sex worker, who passes it on to the clientele; that regulatory model means that legal avenues will end up being less affordable to people than illicit avenues. (And, given that you can pretty easily find escorts working in Vegas despite legal options being available in the state, I think it’s pretty clear that people will be price sensitive.
Drugs: Same issue. Regulatory oversight–which is necessary for recreational drugs to not kill people unintentionally–increases costs, and those costs get passed to the consumer. For a very real-world example, a single 10mL vial of 200mg/mL testosterone cypionate costs about $60 at Costco, and over $100 at Walgreens, et al.. (Testosterone cypionate is a schedule III drug.) You can buy a 20mL vial of 300mg/mL testosterone cypionate on the black market for anywhere from $30-60. You can buy raw hormone powder for under $2/gram (e.g., the raw hormone used in the black market 20mL vial costs the producer $12 or less). A therapeutic dose will be perhaps 150-200mg/week, depending on your own physiology, and what you’re target blood values are. An IFBB pro bodybuilder is going to go through a minimum of 3,000 mg/week during a bulk. If an IFBB pro were to buy their testosterone cypionate legally–if they didn’t need a prescription–it would cost $90/week, versus $15-30. (This ignores all the other shit they take, too.) IFBB guys have been using their black market suppliers for years, maybe decades; what’s their incentive to pay 3-6x as much for something they aren’t going to see a difference in? Legal marijuana has depressed prices for illegal marijuana, but it’s still cheaper to buy a quarter from my local guy than it is to buy in a dispensary.
much like they make tobacco companies do that right now in the us.
Organized crime makes a fuckton of money by forging tax stamps on cigarettes to evade taxes. Before prices started going up dramatically on cigarettes (which I think was a good thing, since smoking doesn’t end up costing just the smoker), that kind of fraud and tax evasion was chump change. Now it’s millions.
A roof that fails on a 500-unit apartment complex will be cheaper to replace per unit than the roof an a single family home. Same with a water heater that serves multiple families rather than a single family. Honestly, it’s a good argument for communes, but communes have their own set of social problems, since it can be hard to get people to take responsibility for shit unless you go into it with the same kind of contract that you’d have when renting.
They’re threatening to evict you, yes. But actually evicting you, in at least some states, can be challenging. I know someone that rented out his entire home (long story), and got paid about three months of rent before they quit paying. It took him nearly two years to get them out. (Last I knew he was suing the agent that vetted them; apparently there was collusion, and the tenant has done this multiple times before.)
The flip side is that if you quit paying your mortgage, it’s also going to take months or years to get you out of the house, but then the bank has a piece of real estate. Banks don’t want to own real estate; that’s not their business. They’re not set up to buy and sell real estate. Foreclosing on a house costs a bank a lot of money.
It really is the Dems on this one. Esp. in MA, which has a Democratic supermajority. And California, and New York, and Illinois. All of those things you are saying are problems are problems created by Democrats, in Democratic-controlled states, because wealthy Democrats don’t want to live near poor people.
I’m not saying Republicans are better; Republicans absolutely have a “fuck them poors” attitude, and the Dems are at least claiming to want to treat people decently. But Dems aren’t following through with what they say they want to do–affordable housing for all–while Republicans are definitely following through with their promise to fuck everyone that isn’t already in the top 10%.
BTW - section 8 should be great for a landlord. You are guaranteed payment on the 1st of every month, and you can still initiate eviction if the tenant is trashing your property or doing crime. But most landlords that aren’t slumlords generally hate that shit, because they don’t want poor people living there even if they’re getting their money. It’s stupid and short sighted.
In Illinois you didn’t have to ‘register’ for section 8 (I believe it was called ‘housing choice’), but it’s been a long time ago. (I owned a house that had two apartments; I lived in one, rented the other out.) Most tenants are functionally judgement-proof, unless you only rent to upper-middle class people. Sure, you might get a judgement against them, but that doesn’t mean you’ll ever see a penny of it. As far as not being a slumlord, I have absolutely no tolerance for landlords that don’t want to keep properties in good repair, full stop. Yeah, it’s expensive to replace a roof, but fuck you, that’s why you’re taking in rent.
You run into a problem that you need to mitigate for this to work: qualifying for a mortgage.
A landlord can rent to you for a year–or less–and they assume the risk of you not paying and needing to evict you. Their income verification can be a lot more loose as a result. A bank is going to be in a relationship with you for 15-30 years; they want to be pretty sure that you’re going to be able to meet your financial obligations for that whole time period. As a result, they’re going to be quite a bit more strict about proof of income, etc.
Renting can be cheaper, too; a tenant isn’t on the hook for repairs to a unit, but when I need a new roof in my house, or the water heater goes out, I get to pay every penny of that myself. Yeah, the mortgage is cheaper, but just because you can afford the mortgage doesn’t mean that you can afford everything else that goes into owning a home.
You also get into weird and perverse tax and zoning incentives that can make it difficult to build any kind of affordable housing; Dems say they want affordable housing, right up until someone wants to put it in their neighborhood, then they start acting like Republicans.
Yes, the lack of affordable housing is a huge problem. But it’s not quite as black and white as it often seems.
I hate the design, but that’s really well done. Angled tile going around a corner? That’s some challenging work! I don’t even know how you’d cut those tiles, and you can’t bend tile.
150M isn’t even close to covering a functioning public transit system in any major US city. Expansions of the subway in New York routinely run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and that’s just expansions. Even if you’re looking at buses only, if you start with the assumption that each bus runs about $100k, that’s a mere 1500 buses. The CTA in Chicago uses over 1800 buses–that only counts the ones currently in operation–so you’re still short on building bus stops, bus lanes, any kind of light rail system, and so on. Oh, and lots of the bus lines in Chicago stop running after a certain time; I couldn’t take the buses to go to any concerts, since nothing operated in my area between midnight and 5am.
Plus, you have ongoing operating expenses. Once a stadium is built, it’s usually operated by someone other than the city.
I’m not saying I’m in favor of stadiums, but whoever costed this needs to consult with a civil engineer to come up with a more realistic figure for comprehensive public transit for major cities.
Currently have 6. I need to get more, and larger ones. We live in a log house, in an area that takes a minimum of 20 minutes for emergency services to get to, and heat with a wood stove. We absolutely need to practice fire safety all the time.
No doubt. Wanna fight me? (lemm.ee)
If Trump loses in 2024, do you think he'd run in 2028?
How much for cuddles? (lemm.ee)
What salary do you think would make you happy?
Why the hell did that stop (lemmy.world)
What can the US do to help Mexico finally stop the cartels?
Politicians constantly talk about stopping the illegal immigrants that are coming from Mexico, but putting a wall has never and will never be a solution since the reason why so many displaced keep coming across the border is mostly to escape the crime, corruption, inequality, and violence of they have to live in their home...
Just sayin (mander.xyz)
Just fuck my shit up (lemmy.today)
Contractor: how do you want the bathroom done?...
Funds (lemmy.zip)
Do You Have a Fire Extinguisher in Your Home and is it Still Pressurized?
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/cb850349-4d78-417a-b3e7-3a0d23f7e864.jpeg