For the most part, you’re probably correct, but Elon Musk would’ve been bullied mercilessly in my high school, and it probably could’ve instilled some sense of self awareness if he had been.
I think the same is probably true of Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance.
It’s cheaper to pay cash than use insurance.
Yes, for most people, in most years. But the cost of health care tends to be very, very unevenly distributed. A person might see medical bills of less than $1000 per year for 20 years and then get a single $1,000,000 year. So at that point, it’s an annualized cost of $50,000 per year, even if most years it’s about $1,000. Some estimates are that 10-30% of all medical spending in the US is in the last year of life.
Many believe that because of this distribution, health insurance should primarily be a catastrophic care model where most people pay a premium that doesn’t cover anything for the first few thousand, then covers a percentage of the cost up to the out of pocket maximum of like $15,000 or so for a family, but does cover everything after that. For a typical household, being able to predict annual healthcare expenses for the entire year is very useful.
And personally, I’m pretty sympathetic to this catastrophic care model as a short term transition to an all payer model that looks like Switzerland’s system (private insurance, private providers, mandatory coverage, strict price controls, and subsidies for anyone who can’t afford the normal premiums).
To be clear, women’s work before World War II was more than just the dishes. If you look at the guidebooks published for housewives back then, you’ll see that they were expected to have quite a few skills that most households now generally outsourc to external businesses:
The economic shifts that come from women leaving the home for the paid workforce are all over, and some of them are pretty pronounced. But it’s important to remember that women worked hard before they ever got paid for it. Life was toil.
Maybe you’re not dreaming big enough on what makes ideal conditions. The fraudulent Nikola company managed to film a semi “driving” a few km without a powertrain, by just letting it roll downhill. I bet there’s a place that has a high enough altitude and smooth enough roads for a long downhill descent where 600km on a 300km battery is possible.
Makes me wonder about the wheel’s rotational inertia, too. In theory, a hubless wheel could be lower mass overall without the need for a center axle/hub and spokes connecting the outside to the center. But that’s all weight saved in the center of the wheel with lower effect on overall rotational inertia. Visually, the picture that makes the thumbnail in this post shows that the brake disc has to be further from the center of the wheel, which I imagine adds a lot more weight (more material necessary for the overall brake disc being a larger circle) and a lot more rotational inertia (further from the center).
Maybe the whole design itself can save weight in certain places that make up for the weight added in other places. But I just have a ton of questions, and am overall pretty skeptical of the long term potential of this design.
Looks cool, though, I guess.
The hubless wheel is on their current models. It’s basically their signature differentiator.
There’s reason to be skeptical of the company and its claims as a whole, but at least that particular feature has shipped and has been test driven by reviewers:
https://thepack.news/11000-km-in-2-months-marc-travels-rides-the-verge-ts-across-europe/
Today? Probably not.
More than 2 weeks ago, when this was published? In that context, based on what was common knowledge among the public then, I understand why he erred on the side of overexplaining that the U.S. military was on the cusp of escalating to an invasion.
My “We’re totally different from Enron” accounting report has a lot of investors asking questions answered by the report.
These changes disproportionately affect rural areas.The Postal Service is reducing trips between mailboxes and post offices more than 50 miles from a regional hub. So that means rural areas and even urban areas that are far from a regional hub will see disproportionate reduction in mail delivery performance, and will be more likely to see a delay in postmarking.
Read through this:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/12/2025-15266/postmarks-and-postal-possession
Postmarks don’t end up on all mail, because certain types of mail do not require cancellation of a stamp.
When there is a postmark, that is proof that the postal service was in possession of that piece of mail on that day. It does not prove that date was the earliest that the item came into the possession of the Postal Service, and does not foreclose the possibility that the Postal Service was in possession on an earlier date.
For the big operational change being implemented, where zip codes more than 50 miles from a sorting facility get fewer trips and might not be sorted on the same day that the mailbox contents are retrieved, there will be a one-day delay on most days, a two-day delay on Saturdays or the day before a holiday (because they won’t postmark on Sundays or holidays), or a three-day delay on Saturdays before a Monday holiday (because the Sunday plus holiday represents two consecutive days they don’t sort mail).
One easy thing to implement, for anyone whose procedures depend on the postmark, is to just move the latest allowable postmark to be the next business day after the deadline, between 1-3 days. Another could be to inform customers that if they live in one of the affected zip codes, they need to affirmatively ask for a same-day postmark at the retail location where they’re dropping off the mail. That might require some additional driving to the actual post office instead of an unattended drop box, but in most places the latest pickup in a blue box is actually earlier than the time the nearest post office closes anyway.
And I will say that I’ve gamed the system before, where I bought a barcode based stamp just before midnight from an automated postal machine, because those aren’t postmarked at all, and most recipients incorrectly consider the purchase date on the stamp to be equivalent of the postmark date, so that I had a few extra hours to finalize an application past midnight that night.
Just like with Social Security numbers, where Social Security Administration had to tell everyone “wait this number wasn’t intended to be used in that way by others,” this seems to be the USPS pushing back against certain assumptions on postmark dates.
I had a whole comment that got eaten up in an error (and a Lemmy client that doesn’t fail gracefully, I really should be moving off of Sync). But maybe that’ll be an opportunity to give a more concise summary of what’s going on.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/12/2025-15266/postmarks-and-postal-possession
This USPS notice is basically correct. The meaning of postmarks isn’t changing: it’s a mark that definitely proves that mail was in the Postal Service’s possession on that date. The absence of a mark doesn’t mean the absence of possession, and the date of a mark does not foreclose the possibility that the mail was in the Postal Service’s possession on an earlier date.
It does note there are operational changes where they’re now taking fewer trips in certain low volume zip codes, and that expands the number of places where postmarks are being applied on the next USPS operational day: usually the next day, but a second day if the next day is Sunday or a holiday, or a third day when the next day is a Sunday and the day after that is a Monday holiday.
Someone mailing something may still request a same-day postmark from the postal facility they’re dropping it off at, but that’s not helpful if they’re already past business hours or using an unattended outgoing mail box.
Most importantly, though, it only has a small potential to affect voting.
Or maybe use excess power to electrolyze water for fuel cell use later?
Hydrogen storage presents a lot of challenges, because it tends to leak at normal temperatures found on Earth. So we either tolerate a lot of loss during storage, or we use lots of energy chilling it to a temperature where it won’t easily escape.
I very rarely hear my neighbors.
Somewhat paradoxically, the soundproofing in big buildings tends to be much better than in smaller buildings. The concrete and steel and thick storm resistant windows and fire doors between unit and hallway required by the building code for tall buildings have so much weight that things like footsteps, moving furniture, and other sources of noise just don’t carry between units.
By this logic fat shaming is acceptable?
I mean, yeah, in many contexts. For example, when a professional athlete shows up to training camp after putting on a bunch of fat in the off-season, that’s fair game. It’s literally their job to maintain their bodies and if we’re allowed to criticize their job performance then we’re certainly allowed to criticize their maintenance of their physical fitness. There’s obviously a clear parallel here between that and other public figures where their intelligence may be fair game for criticism.
More broadly, when people are engaged in unhealthy habits of any kind (from smoking to sleep deprivation to overwork/stress to terrible relationship decisions to unhealthy eating/exercise habits), I think it’s fair game for loved ones to point that out and encourage steering their lives back towards healthier choices. I’m not advocating that we go and make fun of strangers, the range of acceptable conversation in our day to day relationships is going to be different.
No, that’s not OK to mock people’s medical conditions, and it’s always a good idea to exercise some empathy and humility to know that things might not always be as easy for others as for yourself. But I’ve never been on board with the idea that fatness is somehow off limits, in large part that I don’t believe that most people’s fatness is inherently innate. Correlations between moving to or away from high obesity areas (most notably between countries or between significant changes of altitude, but also apparent in moves between city centers and suburban car-based communities) make that obvious that fatness is often environmental.
TLDR: I make fun of Trump’s fat ass all the time.
But because intelligence is an inherited trait
I don’t think this is true, practically speaking. Intelligence is like endurance running speed in that there are heritable components to it, but at the end of the day environmental factors dominate on who is or isn’t faster than another.
I can make fun of someone for being dumb in the same way that I can make fun of someone for being a slow runner. It’s only problematic when their slowness is actually caused by something out of their control, like some kind of health issue.
Yeah, circumcision is near universal in Muslim-majority countries:
Allah = God (Islamic)
Are you under the impression that Muslims don’t circumcize? In many Muslim societies, they make sure the boys are old enough to remember the mutilation, with circumcision around the age of 7.
I’m not as pessimistic as you about the future, and I don’t think of today’s children as people passively experiencing things that happen in the world. They’re participants, and they’ll have a lot more agency about their futures during our lifetimes.
Politically, I still think that fascism is brittle. Competence is actively discouraged (independently competent people are minimized to prevent threats to centralized power), so I think any fascist system is bound to fail when the people actively resist.
Economically, the business cycle ebbs and flows, and whoever’s on top today might not be on top tomorrow. I believe the current economic system is dominated by bubbles that have no future, so we’re gonna see some future chaos where new bases of power will rise. Good guys can win in those scenarios, and those good guys may very well be my own children.
Culturally, nothing is permanent. Trying to predict things is a fool’s errand. Better to just prepare our children for resilience through flexibility and adaptability, and raise them to be kind, well adjusted, socially plugged in.
Living a good life is possible even in a bad world. That’s happened throughout human history. And so if people want to raise children, let them.
Just want people to think a bit further than mid-19th century definions and analysis which I think no longer hold.
Yeah, one of the things that really shaped my views on fairness in wealth distribution was studying corporate law (and the legal cases that shaped what Delaware corporate law is today). That history adds a lot of complexity to figuring out who is the “owner” class and who is the “labor” class. Highly compensated executives often have their shareholders over a barrel, and the legal system is designed to protect management from shareholders, so long as the corporation makes some minimal token gestures towards shareholder value. In practice, shareholders have very limited means of controlling a corporation (mainly by electing directors, who tend to be officers/managers of other companies and sympathize with managers and give quite a bit of leeway when only part time supervising the officers they often play golf with).
And we can see this play out in the modern era. We have a bunch of wannabe finance bros, hopeful future millionaires, talking about financial topics and cheerleading their heroes (CEOs and founders), often being willing marks in financial investment scams. They believe that holding capital will help them survive further divergence between the haves and the have nots, but history shows that when push comes to shove, only power matters. No amount of accumulated wealth can protect against power, and those with power can always use that power to enrich themselves.
So I don’t find it particularly useful to draw bright lines on who is or isn’t the enemy based on their financial situation. We should recognize the power structures themselves, and how power is exercised (politically, financially, legally, culturally, and the old standby, violently), and work to influence things through those levers (including the power to change the levers themselves).
I don’t agree with the implicit assumption that the people who are bullied have to be actual nerds/geeks. People get bullied for being different, whatever that may be, and Elon strikes me as a real weirdo.
And of course that assumes a lack of charisma, which of course describes Elon. Charismatic weirdos can actually set trends to follow, whereas uncharismatic weirdos tend to become social pariahs.