MajorasMaskForever

I didn't use the word no because I felt my answer needed more explanation. Short term no, long term yes with a ton of caveats.

There's a difference between being uninformed and wilfully ignorant. Blasting politicians for there actions based on a headline is wilfully ignorant and yeah I'll call them fucking morons. And on a post about an article that people clearly didn't read, I'm inclined to call that out.

As for your reality, what's better? Willingly lie and manipulate the electorate expecting them to be too dumb or stupid to notice, manufacturer headlines, fabricate a whole new reality just to achieve political victory? I despise the republican party because that's exactly what they do

Have you read Colorado legislation? I haven't gotten through all of it, but there's a lot of stuff in there, some of it even contradictory or tied to things that have been obsolete for a hundred years. There's absolutely value in a system, government or otherwise, that attempts to minimize active rules and regulations, so I wildly disagree with your notion that minimizing regulations is a nonsense excuse. Regardless of its association of some talking head on Fox talking about the eViL FedERaL GuvMenT

Fixing headline only reactions requires people to use critical thinking skills and to understand that stories have nuance and can't be boiled down to just a few words. That requires education which this country seems hellbent on eliminating

Having an abundance of laws on the books leads to real government inefficiencies and I think those are worth putting time and effort into eliminating. I know I used a lot of the same words as he who should actually get deported, so I feel it necessary to clarify that I do not agree at all with what him and the rest of administration is claiming to be making the government more efficient.

What I want is for people to actually read and think, even if it differs from my own thoughts. The whole reason I made my original comment is that the headline and reactions in this thread frame Polis as if he went out of his way to make collusion legal for land lords, and if people read the article and looked at Polis's track record that is objectively not what he did

There's enough nuance to that veto I disagree on that being superfluous a law existing on the books. It takes 50% of employees to vote in favor of forming a union. That part was not going to change under that bill. The repeal (and it's subsequent veto) was entirely on the vote threshold to allow a union to charge all employees union dues regardless of membership status.

Now there's is an argument that the law indirectly disincentives unions since in combination with another law unions in CO must act on behalf of all employees, regardless of membership status, so a union must do more work on less money since 50% of employees are needed to create a union for 100% of employees, but 75% of employees are needed to force all 100% of employees to pay for that extra representation. Most people if given the opportunity will act selfishly and won't join the union and still reap the benefits. In that event, it's pretty likely a union wouldn't have the funds to perform necessary negotiations and representation ultimately leading the union to fail.

But that's a set of laws and human behavior acting in concert, not a single law that on its own is entirely captured by another.

Had the bill passed nothing would have changed in Colorado. The bill was simply virtue signalling and grandstanding, taking no real action to the very real problem of rental prices in Colorado.

My criticism of the original comment is that this is not an instance of Democratic policy that is making people distance themselves from the party. If a person does distance themself from the party over an action like this, they did it because of the headline and how that headline made them feel in the moment

CO resident here:

Polis didn't veto the bill because he wanted to have rent raised in Colorado, or make collusion legal and anti-trust illegal, he vetoed the bill because what it was making illegal is already illegal here. Passing this new law would have done nothing except increase the number of laws on the books. Over the last few years Polis has made it a priority to remove superfluous laws from the books.

If this is causing Democrats to lose support, it's not because of the policy, it's because of the headline-only-reactions and refusal of so many voters to actually think about what it is they're presented with

It's soooooooo boring. I've suffered through it twice and both times I was completely checked out waiting for the movie to end to go do something else with my friends.

To make things worse, I work in the aerospace industry on spacecraft so this movie regularly comes up in conversations and inevitably I end up having to explain how I did not like it

It's a still frame from Star Trek The Next Generation, episode The Game

The plot is a wearable device that is an AR "glasses" game that as you play the game it "makes you feel good" gets used to take over the Enterprise so terrorists can hijack it.

At the time I imagine it was intended to be part of anti-drug campaigns with the AR and companies curating what you see to distract from reality angle/sentiment being more relevant today

Don't forget that if anyone from a small town goes and gets a formal education, comes back, and starts pointing out issues and ways to fix them, they get demonized and declared brainwashed by the LiBErAl eLiTe

Aerospace industry engineer here:

We try to identify failure modes and use tools like Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) and fishbone analysis to track down failures and how they cascade to understand system behaviors. However, the more you increase the complexity of the system, the more difficult it is to fully think through all the possible ways things can go wrong and it's not unheard of for things to slip through review.

Starliner has consistently been plagued by program management issues where they think they've caught the failure modes and implemented appropriate mitigations. They do an analysis, run some tests to prove those assumptions are correct, and fly it. In this case there was a design flaw in the thrusters that they saw on a different test flight, thought they fixed it, and flew again not knowing that they didn't actually fix the problem.

False sense of security is a dangerous place to be when it comes to fault scenarios, but the alternative is extreme paranoia where you trust nothing. In fairness to Boeing, taking some level of risk is necessary in the space industry but I think it's pretty obvious that they were not paranoid enough and were too trusting that they did their job right

Depends on how the income is replaced for the federal government.

If you look at income taxes as a way for the federal government to keep things running for all citizens to enjoy, you could argue that every citizen should pay a fixed even amount, roughly $15k a year. (based on 2024 IRS Income tax collection and estimated population)

Federal minimum wage makes ~15k a year so minimum wage jobs turn into basically slavery for the feds where the slaves are homeless. The average family of 5 in the US, who have a mean income somewhere around 70k now owe 75k in taxes putting them and any poorer families into debt with the government, before being able to feed, cloth, and house themselves and all other taxes are off the table.

As it stands right now, single filers making 90k AGI owe about 15k so people making less than that are basically being subsidized by anyone making more.

If you keep the IRS income tax revenue the same, but apply it to only earners of 150k+ AGI you have ~20% of the population shouldering the full $5.1T income tax. Spread that evenly and now they would owe 70k per person (currently they owe ~29k) You can play the tax bracket game again to slowly ease people into paying that amount, you're only increasing the amount of taxes being paid by the higher earners. If that's what would actually happen, then sure this is can be a good thing to help bolster the economy in terms of more money flowing between citizens, but there's no way in hell this administration will raise taxes on the higher earners in the US.

If Trump did this, what would be more likely is the income revenue gets replaced by sales taxes and tariffs which is closer to the first scenario I described where the federal income is more evenly distributed among all citizens, working or otherwise.

And the revenue will have to get replaced, the federal government subsidizes the fuck out of almost everything and even the 1%ers do not want a reality where the DoD isn't issuing multi billion dollar contracts. You can't make a living scraping off the top of contracts when there are no more contracts. Trump and co. celebrating millions of dollars saved by the federal government aren't even making scratches against current revenue from income taxes, it's political theater just like this tweet

The conspiracy theory isn't that the automotive industry makes them look bad, it's the rail owners.

Real: Amtrak doesn't own any rails, they lease them and legally are supposed to have right of way on tracks unless the owner/operators of the rail currently have their own train that's too big for the bypasses.

Conspiracy: Rail owners make Amtrak experience so painful that it drives down usage so Amtrak runs fewer and fewer trains, so they can be less of a nuisance to them or outright get rid of the service line and they get to completely ignore Amtrak

Closing bracket indented with current level?