"Even a full scale shift to nuclear will still require lifestyle and regulatory changes opposed by conservatives."
What sort of "regulatory changes" to support nuclear power do you think conservatives opposed?
No, you don't get to just wave your hands around and act like I'm lying when I say I don't already know. You're always complaining about how you think Jaybird's doing that. Here's your chance to be better than him, to show him how a Real Grown-Up Should Behave.
Tell me what regulatory changes are necessary to support nuclear power that "conservatives" oppose.
"They’ve collected an average of less than $1,500 per person from people making $400,000 per year and haven’t filed taxes for six years."
You and I see this as a pointless waste of money; government bureaucracy sees this as a success story because, at least one time, they actually did do whatever it was they're supposed to be doing.
And, y'know. They're not actually wrong, by their lights; the point is not to get return-on-investment of dollars regained, the point is to show potential wrongdoers that they will be Found Out, and Punished. Cops get paid to patrol whether or not they find any criminals.
"You keep saying that, but massive ongoing repetition doesn’t make it true."
*shrug* I guess I don't have a response to "nuh-uh". But as we've established through discussion on this website, what anyone intended when writing the PPACA doesn't matter, because we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
The problem with a non-criminal fine is that it's not any different from an ex post facto permit fee.
On the other hand, if the point is "extract revenue from out-of-towners exploiting our public commons" rather than "stop them coming in here", then maybe it doesn't actually matter whether it's a fine or a fee.
(before suggesting that the town is refusing to arrest people because They're White you probably should have looked up the town of Pomfrey VT and checked whether it actually has a police department)
The "exchanges" are Medicaid. The guys writing the PPACA knew they couldn't call it "Medicaid" because they knew that people would say "but that's for poor people" and ignore it.
What will kill us are the people who figure that It's Not Their Job To Think About This Stuff and do whatever the computer says ought to be done, including "activate the Paperclip Convertor and stuff everybody into it".
Which...kinda means that the Killer AI isn't coming, it's already here, and it's been here since the Third Reich in the 1930s.
Keep in mind when telling yourself that the PPACA was a Republican Idea that Romney actually vetoed most of it, and those vetoes were overturned by the (Democrat) Massachusetts legislature.
Also, most of the revenue-generation side of the PPACA has been rescinded by now, and its only lasting effect on most peoples' lives is that there's another piece of paper you need to file with your taxes every year. Some people did get coverage who didn't have it before, but they got it through Medicaid expansions (which were a good thing, but maybe not the "We Fixed Healthcare" that everyone imagines.)
The only really useful thing the PPACA would have done was a national single-payer system, which was deleted by Democrats in the Senate before the bill passed.
The reason they tell techs not to talk to patients unprofessionally is that sometimes the tech gets really quiet all of a sudden and you realize you've got something Professional.
"fast casual" still takes several minutes to cook the food, and it's generally not a form that's easily eaten while driving. McDonald's has that burger in your hand thirty seconds after you pay for it, and it's eminently roadable food. So I'd say that the fast food companies have identified the market price for "burger" and are now trading on speed of service. (I don't really find the quality any less than it was before, although "less than it was before" does not imply "good".)
The issue (as with residential-real-estate builders) is that some people have a religious devotion to the idea that it's genuinely a matter of life or death to be Housed, and therefore if you do something to make a Profit off of that (as opposed to bare recovery of cost) then you're exploiting humans' desire to stay alive. And so obviously profiting off of real-estate (either as a builder or a landlord) is a moral transgression.
So while the legal basis for the action is collusion to fix prices, it doesn't actually matter to the people involved whether price-fixing is actually happening, because the fact that it could happen is enough; that means you could sin, that every possible opportunity to stamp out sin has not been taken, and therefore they can get another stop in their Holy Crusade.
* the argument is that while Piccolo signed up for a Disney account so he could use Disney+, he would have had to sign up for a Disney account anyway to buy tickets online, so the fact that it was originally for Disney+ is not relevant. "signing up for Disney+ means they can murder your wife" makes a good headline but it's not accurate.
* however, the binding arbitration clause in the user agreement says: "“Dispute” includes any
dispute...between you and us concerning the Disney Services or this Agreement[.]" (italics added.) The term "Disney Services" implies the online interactive aspects of WDPR's activities, which are not at issue here; neither are the specific terms of the Agreement itself (the argument being that the Agreement does not apply, not that its terms are being disputed.)
Based on the second bullet I'd say that WDPR's motion to dismiss here should not be accepted, because the "binding arbitration" part of the contract only applies to web stuff and not to the actual physical experience on a Disney-managed property. (Disney will probably just re-file with the claim that they're not at fault because they only leased the space to Great Irish Pubs Florida Inc, and include a copy of the lease which should clearly outline who is at fault for what sort of injury.)
Does anyone have a link to Disney's actual filing where they make the claim? I'd like to see the language for myself, not just a "somebody said that somebody said that somebody said that they said this" summary.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/9/2024”
tfw you heard that thing about "the ducks in the park are free, you can just take them" and did not realize it was a joke
On “The Party of the Middle”
"Even a full scale shift to nuclear will still require lifestyle and regulatory changes opposed by conservatives."
What sort of "regulatory changes" to support nuclear power do you think conservatives opposed?
No, you don't get to just wave your hands around and act like I'm lying when I say I don't already know. You're always complaining about how you think Jaybird's doing that. Here's your chance to be better than him, to show him how a Real Grown-Up Should Behave.
Tell me what regulatory changes are necessary to support nuclear power that "conservatives" oppose.
On “The Minecraft Trailer Needs to be Fed To a Creeper”
Well...on the one hand, they're not wrong that It Doesn't Make Sense To You Because It's Not For You.
On the other hand, I'm finding it hard to imagine who this is for.
On “Apalachee Killer’s Father Now Charged”
"You need to find the guy saying we are in a doom loop of crime and chaos."
well, there's this guy for starters
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/2/2024”
"They’ve collected an average of less than $1,500 per person from people making $400,000 per year and haven’t filed taxes for six years."
You and I see this as a pointless waste of money; government bureaucracy sees this as a success story because, at least one time, they actually did do whatever it was they're supposed to be doing.
And, y'know. They're not actually wrong, by their lights; the point is not to get return-on-investment of dollars regained, the point is to show potential wrongdoers that they will be Found Out, and Punished. Cops get paid to patrol whether or not they find any criminals.
On “Requiem for Raygun”
Like, there's usually a Funderdog story at the Olympics (see also: Jamaican Bobsledding Team). It's part of what keeps people watching.
On “A Cautionary Tale”
"Here are, literally, the requirements for Medicaid in Georgia"
Right, that's for Walmart-brand "Medicaid". The Target-brand "PPACA Exchange" is much less stringent.
"
"You keep saying that, but massive ongoing repetition doesn’t make it true."
*shrug* I guess I don't have a response to "nuh-uh". But as we've established through discussion on this website, what anyone intended when writing the PPACA doesn't matter, because we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
On “Group Discussion: Banning Social Media Influencers From Small Towns”
The problem with a non-criminal fine is that it's not any different from an ex post facto permit fee.
On the other hand, if the point is "extract revenue from out-of-towners exploiting our public commons" rather than "stop them coming in here", then maybe it doesn't actually matter whether it's a fine or a fee.
On “A Cautionary Tale”
Medicaid doesn’t ban you for having a preexisting condition.
PPACA was a Medicaid expansion, with half of it having a non-Medicaid brand for marketing purposes.
On “Group Discussion: Banning Social Media Influencers From Small Towns”
(before suggesting that the town is refusing to arrest people because They're White you probably should have looked up the town of Pomfrey VT and checked whether it actually has a police department)
"
Oh hey there Commons, how are things? Still Tragic? Yep, well, that's what we figured. OK, well, good luck to you!
On “A Cautionary Tale”
Medicaid doesn't ban you for having a preexisting condition.
"
The "exchanges" are Medicaid. The guys writing the PPACA knew they couldn't call it "Medicaid" because they knew that people would say "but that's for poor people" and ignore it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/2/2024”
AI isn't going to kill us.
What will kill us are the people who figure that It's Not Their Job To Think About This Stuff and do whatever the computer says ought to be done, including "activate the Paperclip Convertor and stuff everybody into it".
Which...kinda means that the Killer AI isn't coming, it's already here, and it's been here since the Third Reich in the 1930s.
On “A Cautionary Tale”
Keep in mind when telling yourself that the PPACA was a Republican Idea that Romney actually vetoed most of it, and those vetoes were overturned by the (Democrat) Massachusetts legislature.
Also, most of the revenue-generation side of the PPACA has been rescinded by now, and its only lasting effect on most peoples' lives is that there's another piece of paper you need to file with your taxes every year. Some people did get coverage who didn't have it before, but they got it through Medicaid expansions (which were a good thing, but maybe not the "We Fixed Healthcare" that everyone imagines.)
The only really useful thing the PPACA would have done was a national single-payer system, which was deleted by Democrats in the Senate before the bill passed.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The MRI”
The reason they tell techs not to talk to patients unprofessionally is that sometimes the tech gets really quiet all of a sudden and you realize you've got something Professional.
On “Complicated Starbucks Orders Is A Language I Don’t Speak None To Good”
"fast casual" still takes several minutes to cook the food, and it's generally not a form that's easily eaten while driving. McDonald's has that burger in your hand thirty seconds after you pay for it, and it's eminently roadable food. So I'd say that the fast food companies have identified the market price for "burger" and are now trading on speed of service. (I don't really find the quality any less than it was before, although "less than it was before" does not imply "good".)
On “Kamala Harris DNC Speech: Watch It For Yourself”
"what should the Israelis do"
1) watch "Platoon"
2) don't be like those guys
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/19/2024”
The issue (as with residential-real-estate builders) is that some people have a religious devotion to the idea that it's genuinely a matter of life or death to be Housed, and therefore if you do something to make a Profit off of that (as opposed to bare recovery of cost) then you're exploiting humans' desire to stay alive. And so obviously profiting off of real-estate (either as a builder or a landlord) is a moral transgression.
So while the legal basis for the action is collusion to fix prices, it doesn't actually matter to the people involved whether price-fixing is actually happening, because the fact that it could happen is enough; that means you could sin, that every possible opportunity to stamp out sin has not been taken, and therefore they can get another stop in their Holy Crusade.
"
People aren't going to stop going to Disneyworld.
But they might start saying "eh, maybe I'll wait for streaming to catch the new Star Wars flick."
They might start saying "how much cape-fantasy do we really need, anyway?"
They might start saying "for our next big Broadway musical we'll go with an original property."
They might start saying "...and the Oscar for Best Animated Film goes to Dreamworks 'Wild Robot'!""
They might start saying "We're rebalancing our portfolio, going with more tech stocks and less large-cap entertainment."
On “Disney’s Arbitration Maneuver: A Real Mickey Mouse Operation”
Here's a copy of the defense filing.
* the argument is that while Piccolo signed up for a Disney account so he could use Disney+, he would have had to sign up for a Disney account anyway to buy tickets online, so the fact that it was originally for Disney+ is not relevant. "signing up for Disney+ means they can murder your wife" makes a good headline but it's not accurate.
* however, the binding arbitration clause in the user agreement says: "“Dispute” includes any
dispute...between you and us concerning the Disney Services or this Agreement[.]" (italics added.) The term "Disney Services" implies the online interactive aspects of WDPR's activities, which are not at issue here; neither are the specific terms of the Agreement itself (the argument being that the Agreement does not apply, not that its terms are being disputed.)
Based on the second bullet I'd say that WDPR's motion to dismiss here should not be accepted, because the "binding arbitration" part of the contract only applies to web stuff and not to the actual physical experience on a Disney-managed property. (Disney will probably just re-file with the claim that they're not at fault because they only leased the space to Great Irish Pubs Florida Inc, and include a copy of the lease which should clearly outline who is at fault for what sort of injury.)
"
Does anyone have a link to Disney's actual filing where they make the claim? I'd like to see the language for myself, not just a "somebody said that somebody said that somebody said that they said this" summary.
And besides, it's been well established that there's no reason to expect leeway when failure to closely read a legal document results in significant hardship.
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/19/2024”
Are you Kimmi?
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/12/2024”
"judges don’t make claims, they make rulings."
then why did you even start talking about this, because the judge made a ruling that stated pretty clearly what needed to happen here
"This isn’t a disparate impact case at all; the alleged discrimination by the protesters is intentional "
are you actually quoting Scalia at me here and saying that it's not discrimination if they do it equally to everybody
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.