A simple search of DDG found multiple Jewish sources using and explaining the use of the word 'zionist' as an adjective for individual persons e.g.
The Times of Israel: "To be a Zionist means to recognise the land of Israel as the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and to believe in the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Zion, or Israel."
They mention in the article that they chose to use dollar stores to demonstrate the challenge of eating well in food deserts
And this sentence in the conclusion is pretty spot-on:
"Targeted policy to expand food access ... will be necessary for the Lancet climate food plan to become effective."
"Microsoft's Gabe Newell"
Lol
Life, uh, finds a way
Every Best Picture Winner Ranked by How Good a Muppets Version Would Be
"Imagine this. Kermit the Frog in his little Columbo jacket and tiny fedora, backed up by Fozzy, Gonzo, Miss Piggy, and Rizzo. What are they doing? Uncovering the sexual abuse crimes of the catholic church. Billion dollar box-office."
I only do this when an article is insightful but long, and I feel a bit dissappointed that most people won't read it
I don't know about long-term, but I find it very interesting to interrogate yourself - What was the point of the article? How was it laid out, and was that effective?
With this one I was surprised on reflection how honest the author is in acknowledging an ignorance (How do we fix the problem that has been described? I don't know!)
And considering that the book has nothing to do with space...
Circling back to the books - Bond is actually your everyday high level intelligence officer with a 9 to 5 job, except that a couple of times per year M needs someone he can trust who has a licence to kill
Thanks. While I was hooked, I had a feeling most people wouldn't commit to such a long article
My favourite quote:
Aside: I swear to god, if your answer here is “get a MacBook Air, they’re only $600,” I beg you — I plead with you — to speak with people outside of your income bracket at a time when an entire election was decided in part because everything’s more expensive.
I think the article is a bit thin. Sure the total dollar value is going up, but that is not due to a policy change (mainly explained by inflation)
It then goes off on a tangent about when tax is collected, while acknowledging that it is hard to compare systems and at least at a headline level it is pretty much the same
Finally we get to the meat, high earners get more benefit, but it doesn't really explain why that shouldn't be so i.e. intuitively people would expect they get more total $ benefit because they contribute more
It would be really easy to show that the tax benefit increases as you earn more, just bung up a chart with marginal tax rates, then add a line 15pp (percentage points) below it to show that you get more and more benefit as you earn more. Then graph the benefit against balance with some income assumptions - get people wondering why someone with $2m+ in super earning normal returns needs a $30k+ tax concession in super each year
Where is the discussion on potential solutions? Why couldn't we tax super contributions at marginal tax rate minus 15pp rather than flat rate? Should we give blanket concessions on earnings? What would it mean to tax withdrawals?
I didn't say "Websters Dictionary defines" - I showed that the word is in common usage as a non-perjorative by Jewish sources