“Can the US lose in a way that allows the crazies in office to save face in their eyes?” seems an important question to me. Because if the options are the US clearly losing vs. the US clearly losing but nuking Iran so everyone loses…

I wonder if there’s a legal difference between companies adding a tariff line item to the invoice vs. just raising prices (not that there’s a moral difference IMHO).

The model certainly works for other things — municipal broadband in the USA is often very well regarded.

Global Outbreak World Response Outreach Network, perhaps?

The messaging on 50 has been great IMHO. Basically, “this is an affront to democracy, but Texas did it first and if we take the moral high ground we’re screwed.”

Adjusted for inflation, or better yet something like median salary, would probably be more meaningful.

Seems this will preferentially screw folks in low cost of living areas. If you’re in a HCOL/VHCOL area and making ends meet, then a new car is probably affordable. If you’re making ends meet in a LCOL area, then this is likely a huge expense.

Good on CO. I’m in California and not eligible — I hope we do the same and/or the WA-OR-CA vaccine pact that’s been mentioned elsewhere comes to the rescue.

Are we talking fediveese hackers? You know, the socialist-furries-with-UNIX-socks hackers?

Those folks hate cars, not trains. I don’t think we need to worry.

I don’t think this is the black and white issue that the headline suggests.

Homeless advocates appear to be on board with this, at any rate: https://www.kqed.org/news/12047353/heres-why-sf-homeless-advocates-are-glad-lurie-ditched-push-for-1500-shelter-beds

It sounds like the “more beds” campaign promise was somewhat misguided, as slapping a bandaid on homelessness isn’t a fix; more beds is, to an extent, just for show. Hopefully we’ll be able to get actual, research-based solutions to homelessness here.

I’m not super optimistic, but changing course on a campaign promise because the experts and advocates say your current plan is bad shouldn’t be criticized out of hand IMHO.

Alligator Alcatraz detainees allege proponents boast about inhumane conditions at immigration detention center

My idea of “perfect philanthropy” is something like the Carnegie Hall. While I think it is the government’s role to provide places for art, I don’t begrudge a city for having a more modest venue. So having a world class, tour de force concert hall is a pretty neat philanthropic project IMHO.

States != cities, e.g., https://underscoresf.com/heres-what-you-make-as-a-low-income-earner-in-san-francisco/

If you own own a modest place (<2000 square feet) in a decent (not “old money”) neighborhood in San Francisco and have kids, I would be shocked if your household income isn’t $350k+/year. If that’s considered “upper class” then it’s a very sad statement about how standards of living have degraded — this is likely comfortable living but it is not exotic car + first class airfare money. And it’s almost certainly “less house” than you’d like.

And unless you inherited a lot, you definitely need to keep working to afford that modest lifestyle.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/237395681

That claims ~$420k compensation with ~$25k “other.” If he is playing any substantial role in bringing in $100M+ funds for a good cause, I’d say this person’s compensation isn’t something I’m going to get worked up about. For VHCOL areas this is middle class household income (looks like they’re based in NY NY, so…VHCOL).

From our experience in the US, the birth is nothing compared to the financial drain of the other expenses. And at this age, childcare dwarfs all the other child-related expenses.

We have great insurance and don’t rely on family for childcare though, so the math is very very different for someone with “free” familial childcare and no/lousy insurance…

I don’t know how compensation works in academic administration, but if there’s any vesting going on then you could “take a pay cut” but end up making more due to previous compensation vesting.

Certainly possible for public companies, but again, unsure if that could be the case for a university president…

Stupid adults being stupid and paying for their stupidity is one thing. But 1) this affects their kids, and 2) this can affect my kid (<1yo) and anyone who can’t get vaccinated because they’re immunocompromised/etc.

We’re expecting a baby. Do people travel with a baby? Is it safe? Is it insane? I think we’re just gonna have to stay put for 3 years or so.

If your baby isn’t super fussy, the transportation difficulty (in our experience) is more in the logistics getting to/from airport, and dealing with other ground transportation. We just flew 5+hrs (coast to coast, US) with a 2mo and a ~3yo, and it was a piece of cake (typing that, I’ve jinxed the return flight…).

We haven’t done international travel with our kids yet, but we will eventually. When I was 2 my family went to Europe — some countries were meh with respect to kids, but Italy (from my folks’ retelling) was fantastic, as there is (or was) a big cultural love for young kids.

YMMV of course, but it’s absolutely doable! Kids — even starting as babies — have personalities, and you’ll get a sense of what’s appropriate with yours. Good luck!

We’re in the market for a kid carrying ebike, and while REI makes the most financial sense, I think we’ll be paying a visit to our LBS.

As an aside, I tend to prefer Sports Basement. Have had better luck with their bike department, too. No idea if they’re better from a corporate standpoint though.

There’s also the very real issue of rail priority: https://www.marketplace.org/2024/09/10/amtrak-spars-with-freight-train-industry-over-rules-of-the-railroad/