GreyEyedGhost

Now, I get the appeal to authority, and the arguments against it. Obviously they wanted the cachet of the Nobel name for their economics prize, but economists often worry about the wrong thing. Yes, stagnant capital is bad for the economy, and a stagnant economy is bad for society, but having a vibrant economy doesn't necessarily mean society is benefiting. Most economists don't worry too much about that, and many businesses don't, either. And that's where the problems come in.

While companies are going about making profits, they rarely worry about the world or society they operate in. This is why they will happily pollute the planet, underpay their employees, or produce goods and services that maximize profits rather than better suit their customers', and society's, needs. Hence, fossil fuel companies desperately hanging onto their current profit model while storms rage and cities flood, or light bulbs being made to burn out (or, in the case of LEDs, just a certain component so they can be easily 'recycled'). And this is where society needs to have strong government to step in and curb the ravenous hunger of capitalism and direct that energy in ways that help society.

So, for good or ill, more housing needs to be built, even if that means housing prices are stagnant or even drop. Food has to be affordable, or people with less income need to be supported so they aren't starving. People need to be educated well, so they don't make imprudent choices and have better opportunities in life. Healthcare needs to be accessible, so society is happier, healthier, and can also further drive that economy.

Keep capitalism for what it is good for (or find a way to replace it with something better, preferably without burning civilization down), which is finding innovative ways to get things done, and looking for new and interesting things to make society better. And use government to set limits and direction, such as incentivizing needed housing that isn't profitable.

The dating one was about a guy whose last wife had died. Everett was accusing him of being a real taskmaster and working his last wife to death, so warning the new lady off of a bad situation.

I'd say it was a candidate.

Still more evidence that Daredevil's superpower isn't being able to navigate using echolocation, but to be able to take a beating (which he inherited from his father).

It's pretty well accepted that they taste like pork. Well-marbled, arguably vegan pork.

"Seven ex boyfriends."

"I said seven exes."

"..."

Nothing says self-sufficient like having to bring in troops from other countries.

I would absolutely do the same as you, but I think I've seen pictures of ebikes with that exact load. It looks insane, but good for them!

It's within specification, but it isn't optimal.

One thing to keep in mind is that you don't need the infrastructure of a gas station to have an EV charging station. My wife borrowed my car the other day and topped up at an apartment block. Only one place I went to could be charitably called a gas station, the rest were car dealerships and malls. But I'm also fortunate enough to be able to use an L1 charger at home and work so I tend not to use any.

I recently bought a used Nissan Leaf. No regrets so far, hoping the battery needs to be replaced before my warranty expires. There's a good chance...

This is the case with all newer cars. If you're avoiding EVs for privacy then the same reason applies to any car with OnStar, OTA updates, apps for your phone (remote start, locate, etc.) Or pretty much any car made in the last 10 years or more.

I definitely appreciate wanting to protect your privacy and will readily acknowledge that any EV will make that a problem. But almost every car made since the Tesla Roadster has the same problems. Now, if we could get our respective governments to pass laws stopping this BS, that would be really nice.

Sure, 10% would be a pretty big deal, but 1% in the right places is enough for a different outcome. As this article shows

Given the fact that Stein's share of voters in 2016 exceeded Trump's margin of victory over Hillary Clinton, Clinton would have won Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and thus the presidency, if Stein had not been in the race.

Now, I won't assume that all those voters would have voted for Hillary had Stein not run, but it's clear that third-party voting can have an impact on who wins, even if they have no chance to win themselves. But the GOP seems to think this could help them, and is willing to spend money on that chance.