If they can't put these everywhere they should at least target the minority's in our country who are most susceptible; specifically, people over the age of 75.
I prefer using forums. They feel more personal, inviting, and calm. My bookmarks include top forums for every language I use. I would rather wait a few hours for an answer than bother with SO when I have questions that don't seem to have been asked before. SO is hostile even after years, and years of use I still always feel as though I am walking on eggshells when I post questions to SO. That's not okay.
"health experts fear it can cause potential lifelong damage in children."
Which health experts? Why do they fear this?
"Alina Alonso, the health department director of Palm Beach County, reportedly told county commissioners on Tuesday that the long-term consequences of coronavirus in children are unknown."
That doesn't sound like fear to me, and in some respects the article comes off on me as though the author is attempting to elicit fear where there should be none. I am not a parent myself, but if there's one thing I know about them it's that they tend to be VERY fearful when it comes to their children's safety. If the author is deliberately toying with that then the ought to be ashamed.
Modern medicine had seen before severe cardiovascular accidents and is aware of what a damage in young arteries or heart can produce. Some tissues can self-repair better than other.
The origin is new, but the consequences of damage on any main organ are well studied.
Right, but first we have to establish that they actual fear this. Then we have to establish who they are, and what their qualifications are. Then, as non-experts, if enough experts agree with the ones who are making the claim we can choose to worry or not to worry depending on circumstances.
That's an interesting remark you've brought up here.
COVID-19 is very obviously shaping up to be the defining issue of this election cycle. Mexico is very relieved. But as we are all aware - as the election goes, so goes the media.
I think there's a missing financial product here. Something like an anti-index, where you buy "everything except X". Or better phrased, a way to get your bank to model you a dynamic index, where you can manually specify what is in and what is out.
Counterpoint: Elon Musk is the only (publicly visible) CEO who is seriously talking about going to Mars and direct interfacing between machines and humans and making tangible steps toward these futuristic goals.
His rockets are [mostly] not exploding, his cars are selling to [mostly] good reviews, and neuralink seems to be doing something too.
Perhaps his cult of personality is deserved because although he (along with basically the entire industry) overpromised on self driving timelines, nonetheless he does seem to be one of the few people with the practical vision to take us into a techno future.
Consider that this guy went from a payment processing app to a bonafide private rocket company and is democratizing space flight (and satellite internet!) in what, about a decade?
People love to hate the guy, I believe because he has brash and harbors some unpopular (callous but rational) opinions. Regardless, the respect that he gets from his fanboys is arguably in deserved, if you're the type to find inspiration in great people.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that Musk hasn't done big things. The problem is, he's about 50/50 on how often the big things he does are actually good. This is completely ignored by his fanboys, who ignore the bad, and laud the good to an extent that's entirely untethered from reality.
Take your post for example: You soften the word "lied" to "overpromised" and then slowly build to more and more absurd lavishing praise. "Practical vision" is a bit of a stretch, but "democratizing" is just not reality. And "if you're the type to find inspiration in great people"--just about everyone finds inspiration in great people, so that's not even saying anything, it's just trying to indirectly say Elon Musk is a great person.
SpaceX watchers call it "Elon Time". When Gwynne Shotwell gives you a time estimate, you can take it seriously (subject to regular engineering uncertainty). When Elon Musk gives you a time estimate, laugh it off and say "that's adorable" and recognize that it's mostly intended to keep investors happy and to put pressure on his engineers.
Yes and I would already have won before posting this reply. He said it would be here by now and then moved the timeline when it wasn't and he's done so more than once.
> "SEC, three letter acronym, middle word is Elon’s"
I seriously cannot understand how it is he gets away with all of his gimmicks. I mean, insulting federal government agencies is not a crime, but so many of things he does seem to be awfully close to a crime these agencies are supposed to prosecute for.
P.S.
Hmm... How comes his brilliant TSLA price evaluation of 2 months ago isn't cited? If anything, this should have been captured for future generations.
It seems fishy to me as well knowing that most farmers operate at a loss each year. Whatever profit a system like this might generate would have to be enough to offset those losses whilst still providing enough to keep the farmers happy along with the investors?? Seems pretty damn unlikely that this "agroforestry" is capable of doing that.
Yeah I was wondering what exactly was meant by "reservation".. in my experience you can't, as an outsider (non-native), just go, and live on the reservation. So unless it's unlike any reservations in my state then there must have been something I was missing.
Back in the day, enrolled members of some tribes could sell land to non-members. I think most tribes prevent that now. Land sold to non-members became Fee property that can be owned by non-members or sold to non-members.
Depending on the reservation, you will find plenty of non-members that own property within the reservation.
It's how China works as far as I know. It's a pretty good system; it makes housing cheap (one of the worst problems in the US) and it's good for farmers because if you go bust, you can return the land to the village who owns it anyway.
What happens after 99 years? Are they expected/obligated to renew for a reasonable fee? What's preventing them from refusing to renew the leases after 99 years, and keeping the property (and whatever improvements on top) for themselves? It might not be an issue for the first or second generation of owners, but you'd expect the uncertainly to hurt the resale value of the property as the 99 years approaches.
you'd be surprised how common this agreement is. A lot of the skyscrapers in manhattan are/were built with this arrangement, where one party owns the land, and leases it to the developer who owns builds and maintains the building. Very interesting issues came up in some condos where the owners decided to spike the ground rent when the term was up. Also, as I understand it, pretty much all of the land in China is managed like this, as well as Singapore.
If you think about it, there isn't much of a difference between a 99 year lease and a 1-3% property tax.
Yes it can hurt resale prospects, the longer into the lease you get. At the same time it can also lower upfront acquisition costs. Something to know when you get into it.
Reminds me of a certain piece of land that Britain has a 99 year lease on. Hard for them to end well without a contractual option to extend under reasonable conditions.
Does this depend on the reservation? I've heard of reservations where you basically couldn't build a permanent structure or get a building loan due to how the tribal land rules work.
It's kind of fascinating having these micro-nations that aren't quite nations within our borders, I should read more in to this subject.
Reservations are governed by their tribal government, often with side-agreements/compacts with local or State governments.
Real property within reservation borders is either deeded land or trust land. Deeded land can be sold without restriction. Trust land cannot be sold without approval of the US Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or the tribe.
Natural resources in reservations are usually managed by the tribe. Including hunting and fishing. Some let non-Indians or non-members hunt/fish some don't.
Except for a few exceptions, living on Indian reservations is no different than living anywhere else. Tribe made laws/rules do not apply to non-members -- unless the State or Feds says so. These are usually hunting rules. For example, the Colville Reservation in the State of Washington restricts non-members from hunting large game (deer, black bear, etc.) even if the game is on deeded landed. They can do this because there is a state law that says the same thing.
Also, generally tribes or tribal owned businesses cannot be sued in state or federal courts unless they agree to be sued (same/similar as States and the Federal government). Thus, persons have few rights when it comes to contract disputes, personal or workplace injuries, labor issues, and so on, that involve tribes or tribal owned businesses. Something to think about if one is considering employment or otherwise doing business with a tribe or tribal owned business.
"Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies."
It's a feature not a bug. The entire system was designed s/t it is incredibly hard for anyone in Washington to do anything. There are good reasons for that.
