Don’t sign up anywhere. Just do. The lack of coordination makes it harder to counter, at least not without other collateral damage to legitimate customers and the like.

You’re right, and it’s actually not that hard to show, using actual real world examples, that the rules are stacked. Among federal criminal lawyers (and both of the examples here are federal crimes), it’s basically common knowledge that the punishment for bank robbery is unusually harsh compared to other crimes, and that the risk/reward calculus just doesn’t make any rational sense. It’s also common knowledge that white collar fraud is both easier to get away with and more lightly punished when caught.

Don’t just boycott. Actively do things that cost them money.

If I have $100 to spend, steering that away from them only loses them $100 or so. But if you actively interfere with their income streams, you’re not actually limited to the amount of your own spending power.

Report them for fines and penalties. Poison the data they collect on the world. Take advantage of the costly perks they offer (e.g., 100% return policies on open box items), clog up their customer support lines, exercise your consumer rights to your data or data deletion, target their loss leaders to cut into their profits, etc.

You’re quoting the subsections but the section 2 as a whole, at the top, says:

It is the policy of the United States that no executive department or agency shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship to, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship regarding, persons when neither parent of that person is a citizen and any of the following applies:

It’s a boolean “and,” so in order for those provisions you’ve quoted to apply, the person must also not have a citizen parent.

But if one of the parents has American citizenship, they would have the right to American citizenship through their parentage, and the executive order only purports to apply to children for whom neither parent has US citizenship.

It would need to be a pretty narrow set of circumstances, and it would still be unconstitutional if applied to a child for whom one of the two parents could have had a child with birthright citizenship.

You’re wrong, because you’re either lying or have been lied to about the voter ID measures.

The question has always been: if I don’t have an ID, can I still vote? IDs make it much easier to prove eligibility to vote, but is there a backup plan, a safety valve, for people who don’t have an ID on election day?

If you want to buy alcohol, there are legal ways to acquire alcohol without an ID, if you are actually of legal drinking age.

If you want to fly on an airplane, there are ways to get past TSA and get on an airplane without an ID. TSA only recently started charging a fee for this, but there’s always been a safety valve for people who want to fly but don’t have an ID on them. Otherwise, what would someone have to do if they were on vacation, lost their wallet, and wanted to come home?

Oh, and the actual proposal for the shopper card at the NYC grocery store won’t actually require proof of identity or proof of residency. So if the proposed voter ID laws were going to be equally loose, I don’t think there would be any opposition to a system by which a person who doesn’t have an ID could get one that day, at the polling site, in order to vote that day.

It’s worth reading the underlying paper, here.

Figure 3 has an interactive chart showing both stats (the traditional measure and the new metric under discussion), and visually shows the spread, by age, across all age groups. (If you’re on a phone you can pull the chart up full screen to be able to see y axis lines.)

Some of the discussion around there is interesting, too:

The owner-occupancy rate for households headed by adults under age 35 was 37 percent in 2024. Using the HPOP, which accounts for co-residents and dorm dwellers, we find a substantially lower number: only 22 percent of adults under 35 own their homes.

Figure 6 gives state by state data and shows the actual spread between the two metrics for each state, so you can see big state differences, too.

The commonly reported statistic asks, what percentage of adults live in homes owned by a resident, rather than rent? That’s been steady in the mid-60 percentages for decades.

This new paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis offers another statistic for consideration: the ratio of homeowners to the adult population.

The main categories of people who differ in this proposed methodology:

• People who live in group home settings that do not ordinarily count as renters, like dorms, nursing homes, and prisons, are now included in the denominator (and not considered homeowners). Previously, these didn’t count towards the ratio in either the numerator or denominator.
• Adult family members of homeowners who do not pay rent (adult children, parents of an owner, etc.), or adult roommates paying for a room. This turns out to be about 13.9% of the population.

Most importantly, these are unevenly distributed by geographical region, age, other demographics. Not all of these are bad (nothing wrong with multi-generation living arrangements), but they can show trends across time or place, and pick up less noticeable trends in people’s living situations more broadly.

I’ve been accused of being a centrist, despite basically being to the left of everyone in American politics, and I think it’s because people tend to over-weight the economic left/right spectrum (or project other non-economic issues onto the left/right spectrum), and not place enough effort into thinking through:

• Ideological purity versus pragmatic deal-making.
• Actual governance skill, kinda a technocratic versus populist view.
• When and where it’s appropriate to break the law to accomplish goals, like the lawfu-to-chaotic alignment in the D&D memes.

None of that is left/right or centrist in itself, but my positions (pragmatic, technocratic, lawful) sometimes put me at odds with other voices on the left.

Other criteria that don’t map onto left/right include authenticity, consistency/predictability, coherence across issues, and plain old network connections, and political effectiveness (influencing the public and other politicians to follow your lead on issues).

Mamdani is awesome because he exudes authenticity (like, I’m not a Knicks fan but he can give a great mayor’s speech for his favorite team winning), gets things done (actual stuff around city governance, like snow shoveling), and seems to know how to get policy passed (working with Hochul to get some big ticket legislation on taxing the rich accomplished, even if it will contain some compromises). He is, in other words, an effective politician. We need more people like him scattered throughout different jurisdictions.

I will gladly support a coalition of centrists and leftists to move things to the left, especially if they can flank the current Republican party on plain old competence and honesty/fairness in governance.

I agree this whole controversy is attracting weird misinformation.

The state constitution gives the governor power to appoint replacements in the event of a vacancy.

The legislature passed a law in 2021 requiring the governor to choose an appointment from the list provided by the state party of the outgoing Senator’s party.

Then, the legislature passed a law in 2024 prohibiting the governor from choosing a replacement at all, and requiring a special election as soon as possible, at least 56 days before the general election.

The governor has publicly stated his position that both laws are unconstitutional under the state constitution, and basically everyone believes that if McConnell’s seat becomes vacant that he’ll appoint a replacement as a Democrat.

McConnell’s term expires at the end of this year, and the general election in November is already going to choose McConnell’s full term replacement.

If both laws are unconstitutional: the fake deadline doesn’t matter, because the governor can select a replacement without restrictions.

If only the 2024 law is unconstitutional (but the 2021 law is constitutional): hiding McConnell’s death and delaying the vacancy is counterproductive for Republicans, because it just prevents the Republicans from filling McConnell’s seat (where he’s currently unable to vote) with a Republican who can vote.

If the 2024 law is constitutional: hiding McConnell’s death and delaying the announcement doesn’t do anything, because replacing a non-voting Senator with a vacancy doesn’t change anything anyway, because the general election in November will determine who becomes Senator for the next term that starts on January 1.

Basically, the only way this date makes a difference is if it causes a special election to get the seat filled for the 3 months between September and December, and it’s unclear which party would win that seat to basically tip the margin in the Senate up or down half a vote (and not enough to actually tip control of the Senate).

The timing of the Senate vacancy is a very low stakes issue, and doesn’t clearly favor one party over the other.

I would be 100% in favor of an amendment that clearly spells out that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are limited to actual humans, and any corporation or other group of people are not entitled to any more inherent rights than the humans who make up the corporation are entitled to collectively.

How does that change the current law, though?

I’d be in favor of a rule that explains that organizing into associations doesn’t change the rights of the individuals who form the association, but also that the association would only have rights that relate to the actual purpose of forming the association in the first place (whether it’s a corporation, LLC, partnership, joint venture, other unincorporated associations).

So a church gets religious freedom. But a sandwich shop does not. A newspaper gets freedom of speech and may exercise editorial discretion on what goes on its pages. A telephone company does not, and cannot discriminate against the viewpoints expressed over its phone lines.

There are trickier issues: can a government ban halal slaughter, and would a Muslim-owned butcher shop be entitled to a religious exemption (if, assuming, individuals were granted that exemption)? I’d argue you have to look to the nature of the business or organization to determine whether that particular right applies to that organization, so the butcher shop can invoke the religion of the human butcher, and possibly even the human customers who want to buy halal meat.

But the framework makes sense to me, and is closely related to the principle of organizational standing, where something like a nonprofit association of apple growers can sue on behalf of apple grower rights, despite not being an organization that actually directly grows apples. That’s how corporate rights should work: look to the reason for incorporating and the nature of the organization, and how it relates to the nature of the right at issue.

You should be able to do a little drugs at work.

There’s literal video footage of him standing around, bored, in the Oval Office, seemingly annoyed that he still has to be standing, while people tend to a guy who fainted a few feet away from him.

For the most part, you’re probably correct, but Elon Musk would’ve been bullied mercilessly in my high school, and it probably could’ve instilled some sense of self awareness if he had been.

I think the same is probably true of Stephen Miller and J.D. Vance.

There are basically 3 main systems for universal healthcare in the world:

Beveridge model: the government runs the hospitals and employs the doctors, and any resident may use the services. This is known as socialized healthcare, and it’s what UK uses.

Bismarck model: the government mandates everyone get insurance from highly regulated competing insurance companies (some of which might be government operated and run, and some of which might be private). Everyone is put into the risk pools so that the insurers will collect enough from the entire population, including the low risk demographics. Those who cannot reasonably afford insurance are given government subsidies so that they can be covered, too. This is what Germany and Switzerland use, and is sometimes referred to as an “all payer” or “Swiss” model.

National Health Insurance Model: This is where the government gives everyone insurance and positions itself as basically the monopoly/monopsony health insurer to cover everyone and negotiate compensation rates for health care services provided by private providers. This is what Canada uses. It’s also known as “single payer.”

The fourth model of health care economics should be mentioned, as well. It does not promise, or even try to provide, universal health care. It’s the fee for service model, where private providers set their own prices and consumers decide whether to purchase those services. Sometimes insurance can be involved, but the providers are free to negotiate their own prices with insurers, but might opt not to take insurance at all and make the patients deal with that paperwork.

Many countries use hybrid models that combine elements of the Beveridge Model and the Bismarck Model, with government providers competing with private providers, and maybe government insurers providing a backstop for what private insurers won’t cover.

The U.S. doesn’t follow any one model. It follows all 4 models in different settings:

• It follows the socialized model for the military and veterans affairs, as well as the Indian Health Service for Native American tribes (the government owns the hospitals and employs the staff directly).
• It follows elements of the all payer model for most employer-provided health insurance (employers of a certain size are required to provide optional health insurance) and there are the ACA exchanges, where private insurance is highly regulated and is generally required to provide coverage to anyone who a>!!<pplies, and pays providers based on negotiated prices (and since 2021 providers can’t go after the patient for the difference if they don’t like how much the insurer pays).
• It follows elements of the single payer model for the elderly, through universal Medicare coverage for those over 65. Medicare is the elephant in the room for negotiating prices and procedures, and providers generally don’t want to refuse to take Medicare because it’s just such a dominant insurer among the elderly population. For example, federal law requires any hospital with an emergency room to provide life saving services to anyone who needs it, regardless of ability to pay. The actual mechanism for making that policy is by tying Medicare eligibility to that policy. In theory hospitals could refuse to provide emergency medicine to those who can’t afford it, but then they’d lose millions in Medicare funding.
• But the fundamental default in the U.S. is the fee for service model. Providers doing patient intake will ask “and how are you going to pay for this,” ready to accept either direct payment or an insurance policy.

Turning back to waitlists for medical appointments, the specific type of payment arrangement in the U.S. is a big determinant for the waits. Providers who take the most popular insurance plans might get their calendars filled weeks or months in advance. Especially in lower population areas that are underserved by healthcare providers. (Side note, expect things to get much, much worse for rural healthcare with the DOGE cuts to HHS and USDA.) But in the big cities, those with higher paying insurance can generally get seen pretty quickly.

There is no universal system in the U.S., so there is no standard experience in the U.S. It’s fragmented all to hell, and not only does it suck, it sucks for everyone in a different way.

Substitution bias tends to overstate inflation, because they only reweight once a year (which is much more frequently than what they used to do). And the reweighting of the components won’t change the fact that the individual components continue to be published.

Beef is getting much more expensive than it used to be. In the 90’s, ground beef used to be cheaper per pound than chicken breast. In the 30 years since, beef has gotten expensive much faster than chicken, and now ground beef costs almost 50% more than ground beef:

Ground beef

Chicken breast

To add to your comment, if anyone is interested in the data series for steaks generally:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000FC3101

Wouldn’t hedonic adjustments go the other direction from what the parent comment is saying? If the quality goes down, then the adjustment should increase the stated inflation.

I read the parent comment as talking about substitution effects in consumer behavior, but the CPI doesn’t reweight month to month (it used to only adjust once every few years, but has recently switched to once a year).

So generally, substitution bias makes the CPI overstate the inflation as actually experienced by the typical household.

Capping congressional salary that low is a bad idea

Exactly. Giving someone immense power without giving them pay reflecting that power is just an unstable incentive for corruption.

There are some downstream effects, too. Federal law caps regular federal employee pay to formulas based on the Congressional pay, so plenty of senior managers and Ph.D.-level specialists have their pay capped because Congress hasn’t given itself a raise since 2009, all while inflation has gone up by about 50% in those 16 years. It used to be that federal employees would put up with lower salaries for better job security and belief in the mission, but the current administration has basically torn down those assumptions.

In theory Congress could lift the caps on federal salaries without giving themselves a raise, but I don’t think that’s very likely.

You’re talking about a guy who congratulated Putin on his sham election victory while staring at a card that said “DO NOT CONGRATULATE.” And he’s aged 7 years since then.