CaptainProton

Struggling to find the paper with actual tests, but there was a separate statistical analysis backing this up, and here's a link to another paper confirming those results: https://docs.iza.org/dp8590.pdf

Struggling to find the paper with actual tests, but there was a separate statistical analysis backing this up, and here's a link to another paper confirming those results: https://docs.iza.org/dp8590.pdf

Because it's a huge chunk of the labs revenue, and there are other labs the companies would want to work with. Then the automakers who make up the rest of the labs business are now potentially liable for kids fitting without a car seat, instead of being able to transfer that liability to the car seat makers. What is the moral thing to do and what are you incentivized to do are very often opposite.

It just causes far less headaches for automakers to keep the existing laws mandating child safety seats, so the liability can be transferred to other companies that now have a reason to exist, and you have a way of feeling better by spending $500 on the fancy seat instead of 100 bucks on a cheap one that works just as well.

If the parent had line of sight on the baby, would they have forgotten about him?

Serious question: with today's cars and car seats, radically different survivability in crashes compared to when car seat laws were passed, would more children die from accidents with front facing seats or no car seats at all? I've heard about crash tests done in secret showing the answer is there is no measurable difference with modern bucket seats. (Edit: Struggling to find the paper with actual tests, but there was a separate statistical analysis backing this up, and here's a link to another paper confirming those results: https://docs.iza.org/dp8590.pdf )

Talking about a politician who insider-trades her way to tens of millions in gains each year.

The real fix here is to ban speculative trading on anything with either industrial or everyday use (like metals and real estate).

From the screen grabs, Since when is a legally street parked RV a homeless encampment? Looks like picking low hanging fruit for campaign talking points.

You know some hospital system will be out there hiring brainless diaper changers to replace RNs, and have a limited number of real nurses who will be very over worked.

They just need to provide zero customer support, no updates to IP addresses in Oregon, etc. No need to prevent people from using devices they own, just stop transacting.

Vetted people with impunity and different interests from your own. But vetted, yes.

After a cops own well-being comes the "blue wall of silence", then their actual orders, and finally you, you come last in their priorities.

https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/police-integrity-lost-study-law-enforcement-officers-arrested

The thing about real estate though, is that supply is inelastic. Your one landlord cannot just turn up production and pump out a million widgets of housing. They'll sell out, fast. And you're back to square one.

All the sophisticated (institutional) landlords modeled and realized that with higher prices and lower occupancy rates they still make more money, and they all use ONE company to set their price on each unit.

Game theory, it's in the interest of every landlord if prices go up a little, so the overwhelming majority will raise rent.

Fact is only so much stuff is made and only so much space exists and only so many people exist to make and build etc. Money is just an abstraction for allocating those resources. Broadly speaking the market would adjust and everything would remain the same for 95% of people. The HOPE of UBI advocates is that, after adjustments to prices, the UBI would have an impact on that last 5%.