One of the most humane solutions is also the most economically efficient. Early intervention programs like rent/utility assistance are significantly cheaper in the long run than trying to rehabilitate people who have already lost everything and have a litany of health issues because of it. If conservatives really want to save money, they should be embracing "an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure." Instead, they're stuck in wanting to SEE the desperation before even considering helping. Safety nets are major economic stimulus in the long run because it's much easier to attempt entrepeneurship if you aren't making a life and death gamble. But something tells me the currently wealthy know this and don't want competition popping up.

Then of course we also need to fix affordability issues, because unaffordable necessities put everyone at risk.

My point is that even if you mostly just care about efficient government and economic growth, you should still come to similar conclusions as "bleeding heart liberals." Conservatives don't come to those conclusions not by economic arguments, but because they fail to see the merit of collective problem solving. They want to have their own little castle with all their stuff that they can defend under penalty of death. We pretend the argument is about feasability and cost effectiveness, but the real issue is that they don't think that any proposal that would take anything from them or require giving is an option. That's why you see the economically destitute and ultra wealthy in an unholy alliance. Both of those groups are prone to wanting to circle the wagons and consider only the wellbeing of people in their little circle -- the poor out of desperation, and the wealthy out of possessiveness. Everyone not in their little circle is someone else's problem.

Billionaires still don't get that their fear and outrage is a ringing endorsement for someone like Mamdani. Every dollar they spend implies many more dollars available to be collected by the city. Their best strategy would have been utter indifference. I guess now we know who has a terrible poker face.

No surface prep? That will flake off in no time.

Or a chicken drumstick for somewhat similar bone strength.

How much do you think nurses make?

For anyone who thinks this would be a good tradeoff, this would be the worst sleep of your life.

I've only had sleep paralysis a couple times and it was always because I was stressed about homework/work and my brain kept trying to work through the problems in my sleep. It is a terrible experience. Sleep is about way more than physical rest. Depriving your brain of good sleep will ruin your memory and make functioning during the day exceedingly difficult.

Plus, let's look at what employers did in response to women entering the workforce. Has average household income doubled? No, pay has stagnated to the point of households needing two incomes to meet expenses. Don't expect working through your sleep to mean a life of leisure in the day. You're more likely to see wages fall to the point where everyone needs a day job plus a sleep job.

Trump has to be less than 1000 big macs from a massive heart attack. She should stay in the race as the contingency candidate.

Even if you're confident that the only people working a task are competent, they will eventually do something idiotic. Someone will have multiple nights with barely any sleep, or work really long shifts, or have a terrible event in their personal life. Eventually, someone will be trying to do their job while not fit for the task.

The concept of idiot proofing can sound derogatory or elitist at times, but the reality is that any one of us could end up being the idiot given bad enough circumstances.

It's never safe to experiment with replicators. Just ask the asgard how that turns out.

Or in the case of Comcast or Facebook, just rebrand without having to buy another company.

If only there were a more convenient way to express 0.1cm.

The glaring error is this screenshot is listing an income figure that is comparable to the 2022 total revenues in the 2022 fiscal report.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/ebitda

It looks like Starbucks 2023 EBITDA was $7.3 Billion and the net income was $4.1 Billion.

The post makes a good point, but uses garbage data. Why do they do this? Although an $11,000 raise would elliminate the actual net earnings figure.