CaptainProton

People completely ignore logistics. That fighter jet needs hundreds of human hours by dozens of people for every hour it operates. And when the fighter jet drops bombs in the neighborhoods of those maintenance people, not only does the Jets stop being maintained, but people in the military ranks begin to switch sides. That's to say nothing about fuel delivery drivers, businesses, etc that are all necessary to keep the machine working.

At some point people confused peaceful with harmless. Harmless people who got accustomed to the idea of outsourcing the capacity for violence... but then the vendor had a change in ownership...

That's kind of been the whole thing about the anti-2a people: they've kept saying "the people"in "the militia" are the cops and states (as opposed to the federal government), and the law-and-order conservatives aren't saying no to militarizing law enforcement, and the pro-gun right for decades (60s-90s) played along with all the "2a is for hunting" nonsense. The point of 2A is for the government to be afraid to do this crap, but 2A is too watered down at this point to have that effect. The kind of population that could live armed as well as any military (not ours) would just have a different behavior in general.

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.