That's the annoying part of English. How we got here is perfectly logical for the most part, and that does absolutely nothing to make any of it make sense.
ricecake
joined 2 years ago
From the dictionary: (archaic) second-person singular simple present indicative of be
So, yes?
You can learn it practically if you take a couple of anatomy classes oriented towards a medical career. A good chunk never really get used outside of precision in documentation, if it's a specialty (everyone says "cheek", but the dentist says "buccal"), or if the common term is actually too vague to work with (broken arm -> greenstick fracture of the left radius)
Taking an anatomy class to talk like a plastic surgeons billing notes is just weird.
You can learn it practically if you take a couple of anatomy classes oriented towards a medical career. A good chunk never really get used outside of precision in documentation, if it's a specialty (everyone says "cheek", but the dentist says "buccal"), or if the common term is actually too vague to work with (broken arm -> greenstick fracture of the left radius)
Taking an anatomy class to talk like a plastic surgeons billing notes is just weird.
Because it doesn't remove the incentive to switch to a more fuel efficient vehicle or use more efficient modes of transportation. It removes one incentive that disproportionately leans on the people least able to change their transportation: it's an ineffective incentive.
Worse than being ineffective, raising fuel prices without comensuratelty easing transition to other modes of transport drives people to do things like "vote for politicians who promise to lower gas prices", invariably by increasing supply.
Shifting the financing of road maintenance to freight doesn't reduce the funding, it just changes where it comes from. Additionally, you can increase the freight fees more than you decreased the gas tax. Although there's more personal vehicle use than freight, road freight still accounts for roughly 30% of emissions, and we have economical and clean alternatives in a wide variety of cases.
This isn't something you do in isolation.
There's a limit to how much you can suppress driving through price controls without doing harm people won't tolerate, and diminishing returns on how effective it is.
How expensive does gas have to be for you to take an eight hour, 11 mile, bus ride? For you to walk three hours on the highway in a cold weather emergency at four in the morning? Do you just stop going to the doctor instead at that point?
People like progressive policies that benefit them, and they dislike ones that hurt them. Taxing road wear instead of road usage benefits most people, lets you push trucks off the road, and still lets you look into other policies that benefit people while being more environmentally sound.
That's legit. Some of it tastes pretty good, and it can make you feel kinda pleasant, silly and chatty. The biggest perks of it can be had, in my opinion, with citrus juice, simple syrup, soda water and basil. You also need a friend and a pot of coffee to really get it right though.
Group bargaining works, it's just that people heard "we're going to use our position to lower consumer costs", but what they said was "we're going to use our position to lower costs". They have no motivation to pass those savings on, considering you probably get a plan partially subsidized by your employer so it's cheaper than what you can get alone, and you're legally obligated to buy insurance.
Look at what the government can essentially dictate as the procedure costs because they're big enough that their "accept our terms or don't see our patients" is a compelling threat, particularly when backed by the tax ramifications of saying no. They've got leverage and no particular profit motive, so they can tell a hospital "a surgery suite costs you $250 an hour, the surgeon $150, staff another $500, and material $100, with recovery costing another $250. We'll pay 80% and you can bill the patient the remaining $250. If they have gap insurance they'll pay and they can't dispute because we payed". And the hospitals invariably just accept it, rather than lose tax status and ~60% of their patients.
only profit when human beings suffer. how many other industries get to do that?!
Defense contractors, daytime talk shows, and reality TV. 😛
It's legally the same chemical, and often the same brand. However, their handling of potentially sensitive products is profoundly lacking. See: https://apnews.com/article/dollar-tree-lead-cinnamon-applesauce-wanabana-7376af3115d7fe506ad2cb168787d1d3
I wouldn't trust them to properly comply with a recall that I as a consumer would usually trust the store to handle, like taking products they know to be contaminated off the shelf. Additionally, I wouldn't trust them to ship or store those products in compliance with manufacturers guidelines.
Most things will be fine, but some things breakdown or develop issues if not stored in what are typically reasonable conditions.
For example, if kept too long or in improper conditions, aspirin can break down significantly and provide less benefit. Annoying if you're taking it for a headache, potentially dangerous if you're taking it for clot prevention.
Likewise bottled water, although typically drawn from municipal water supplies, is not held to the same standards and can develop bacterial growth if left in poor conditions too long.
Then there's the chronic staffing issues that can lead to food that requires refrigeration, like meat or dairy, to sit waiting to be put in the cooler for far, far longer than is safe.
Dollar stores are great for stuff like "I lost my shirt at the beach and I need something so I can go inside a restaurant", crayons, and general "stuff" you need only a small amount of and can afford the relative markup or only need infrequently. I wouldn't trust them for anything that goes inside a living creature because I have no confidence they even have enough staff to try to handle things appropriately.
I'm guessing because 1) dumb ideological reasons involving cutting every government service that isn't the military or immigration enforcement and 2) FDIC is primarily funded by fees from the banks. Consumers are so detached from how stuff works for the most part that removing the FDIC insurance fee wouldn't give consumers higher interest rates, but just decrease the banks expenses and make them more money.
Not even remotely true. In the 2008 financial crisis, between 2008 and 2012 , there were nearly 500 bank failures, and more than a trillion in assets involved and the FDIC covered every cent labeled to be covered.
No, that's actually a pretty reasonable idea. Given that they've never lost a cent of money, can take more from the other banks if they need to, and are ultimately backed by the people who print the money.
You don't understand insurance or how the FDIC works.
To convey uncertainty, because the dictionary classification of the word was a bit of a mouthful, and I was only 90% certain that I was interpreting it correctly.