Think most commenters are correct and that tech and screens have usurped more “medicinal” drugs.
What I find interesting is the general lack of care among folks here at HN. There was a comment thread about some person in AL alluding to not being able to find qualified workers at their government contractor implying a morale hang up on “weapon systems”
I’d argue tech kills more folks than these contractors but people can easily look past that.
Agree, but from a political standpoint it's cheap. The subsidies are overall not expensive and it's good to incentivize over production of crops from a nation security standpoint.
Below comments are correct, EVs will ultimately be the equalizer
Western Kansas seems to average in the upper teens to mid 20s of inches of rainfall per typical year (drier years do come as the article notes). If it could be husbanded well you'd think that would be sufficient rainfall to grow these crops.
That’s an average calendar year most likely. A corn crops roughly needs 20 inches of water to be viable. Corn is usually only grown in 1/3 of the year.
We just shouldn’t subsidize crops in this region. If people want to make a run at it, more power to them and it may work in some years. But no subsidy
To the downvoters: I just assume that a person who identifies enough with the high water use avocado to have it in their user name would have done some research into agricultural water use.
For now. And American oversupply stabilizes other regions of the earth.the arab spring rebellion started of as a protest against rising bread prices.The bread prices rose due to American food aid being redirected to biofuels. Good intentions do not transfer to good politics. If change is necessary make it gradually so the world can adapt to it.
Practically speaking I agree, but it's a step backwards in that it's the direct consequence of legislation to remove extant environmental/habitat protections that were put in place by state/federal management agencies. This is not really dissimilar to legislatures in certain states that legislate policies that override hunting/fishing agencies recommendations due to public sentiment (NJ bear hunt ban or the bill in Wisconsin legislature trying to increase quotas for wolf harvest).
Conservation, habitat and environmental protection should, by nature, be managed on longer scales than what election driven and political legislatures are capable of.
Come on, we are relying on 17/18/19 year olds to do a proper financial risk analysis on _debt that can never be bankrupted_? Adults have created this mess, don't put the blame on students 'doing what they've been told' e.g. go to college (more prestigious the better, too)
Colleges have a literal vested interest in keeping kids stupid about loans and debt. There should be a million places you have to sign, with big red disclaimers about the responsibility you're about to undertake. Who else is to blame? You signed the paper work. I was once that age, and decided not to go into crippling debt. Many, many young people decide not to fall for the trap. Alot of naive ones fall for it tho.
Corporations have had certain characteristics of people as long as they've existed. Do you want a corporation to be able to enter a contract that isn't with a specific person within the corporation, for example? Corporations also have freedom of the press/freedom of speech. The question in that decision was whether political spending by corporations was part of the free speech right. There's no question more broadly that corporations can put out a press release saying more or less anything (truthful) that they want.
This is a really lazy trope whatever you think of the specific decision's result (or the reasoning).
> The question in that decision was whether political spending by corporations was part of the free speech right. There's no question more broadly that corporations can put out a press release saying more or less anything (truthful) that they want.
The "political spending" in the case of Citizens United was the production and dissemination of a propaganda film. If the release of a film can be restricted, why not a press release as well?
From wikipedia: "Broadcasting the film would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation, non-profit organization, or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time."
If the law bans "electioneering communication", could not an electioneering press release be considered such a banned communication as well?
You're probably right. Most of the attention has focused on the financial angle. That said, organizations do have pretty broad latitude to advocate for laws and other outcomes. Conservation organizations do it all the time for example.
I see multiple ways of interpreting what you said:
1. SCOTUS considers corporations 'natural persons' in their decisions
2. SCOTUS considers 'corporate personhood' to encompass too many rights, you believe should be exclusive for 'natural persons'
3. Possible misunderstanding around the term 'corporate personhood'
Could you clarify a bit? I've seen a lot of (3.) on discussions around this, while claiming essentially (1.) happens or (2.) is what peopel try to complain about.
IMO, a lot of people who didn't like the decision (whether because of which justices decided it or for some other reason) latched onto the "SCOTUS decided that corporations are people" shorthand because it seems absurd taken literally. Corporations are clearly not people (natural persons) the way you and I are.
But saying that corporate personhood shouldn't include political donations as part of their free speech rights, while a perfectly reasonable position and I might even agree, doesn't make as good a soundbite.
When you really think about it, Citizen's United makes a lot of sense as a decision. It seems self evident to me that a non-profit trying to, say, save the local wetlands, should be able to make political statements like "Don't vote for Dave, Dave wants to pave our wetlands". Likewise, labor unions should be able to campaign against politicians trying to attack their ability to exist. Okay, so, only non-profit enterprises can engage in political speech. That still leaves you with the whole PAC thing, but maybe it's an improvement. What about Creedance Clearwater Revival? Or Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? Their art was certainly political, does that mean they should be barred from selling it?
What I find interesting is the general lack of care among folks here at HN. There was a comment thread about some person in AL alluding to not being able to find qualified workers at their government contractor implying a morale hang up on “weapon systems”
I’d argue tech kills more folks than these contractors but people can easily look past that.
reply