Meh. Tires matter more than drive layout. Best winter car I ever owned was a 1997 Miata with Blizzaks. Beat the pants off our AWD Lexus RX on all-seasons.
Because football is the most studied and has one of the highest (if not the actual highest) rates of head trauma per time played.
Rugby and ice hockey are certainly bad, but at least the impacts are generally limited to play near the ball/puck, whereas with American football, essentially every player has an impact on every play (WR blocking on rush plays, etc).
It's well established that the effects of repeated head trauma are cumulative, with progressively longer healing periods, worse symptoms, etc. And that sub-concussive impacts also accumulate along with the concussive impacts.
From the article:
The bulk of the head impacts that these former NFL players experienced didn’t occur at the NFL level. They occurred at the collegiate level ... and at the high school level and in many cases the youth level. And all of those cumulative hits to the head added up to result in an increased risk,” said Daneshvar.
Seems like requiring an audit might be the solution to this issue? Why they (or anybody) can go public, with financials that are little more than a pinky-swear, is beyond me.
> That is something obvious to add on relevant public materials
Like the S-1? Where it clearly shows the auditor's opinion where it goes in every S-1? Because pretty much every company going public (through a IPO) in America needs to have audited financials [1].
I think people were not satisfied with that one in S-1. It excludes this year completely and run-rate revenue and net revenue retention not verified, which is kinda big thing. They claim 900% NRR.
On some forms in the US, it's listed as a suffix. Some agencies enforce it, others do not (SSA does not, for example). And colloquially, when"Senior" dies, the son often stops using "Junior" (though that's not a legal change).
UK, Can, and AUS are similar, but not exactly the same as the US. And NSW in AUS complicates matters by outright prohibiting roman numberals are Jnr/Snr suffixes. Mexico has more restrictions due to the mothers-last-name, fathers-last-name naming convention.
Personally, I dig the Nordic and Arabic "x, son of y, son of z, son of..." patterns.
How the heck can one state of Australia prohibit certain types of names? Doesn't that cause all kinds of problems with documentation mismatches if someone moves?
Dunno, but Iceland also enforces it's son-of/daughter-of naming convention to the point some names are explicitly prohibited (or is it explicitly allowed, I forget if it's a black-list or white-list).
They don’t change names when they move. The names are registered in the location of birth.
But your name might get mangled in some states if it doesn’t fit, same as it might in the US if some system doesn’t properly handle, e.g., multiple middle names or special punctuation.
It's not unusual for someone to change their name when immigrating. Have you met anyone in your presumably English-speaking country who wrote their name in Korean characters? Probably not because they convert it to the nearest allowed name.
>Have you met anyone in your presumably English-speaking country who wrote their name in Korean characters? Probably not because they convert it to the nearest allowed name.
Having a list of "allowed" names implies another list of "disallowed" names. I am not aware (including names with non 7-bit ASCII characters) of any such list of names that aren't legally allowed to be used.
I'd note that the artist formerly known as Ƭ̵̬̊ legally changed their name to that symbol here in my "presumably English-speaking" country.
I am not aware of any such restrictions where I live. Perhaps it's just where you do?
It's not legal in the US to call your child "fuck this shit I'm out" because it is child abuse.
Ƭ̵̬̊'s legal name is not Ƭ̵̬̊ because government systems can't process that symbol he calls his name. It's not illegal to say your name is Ƭ̵̬̊ but that's not actually your name as the government sees it.
Not so long. My grandfather, born 1908 in Norway, kept the proper patronym as a middle name since he would otherwise have the same full name as his father. Everyone had to take fixed last names by 1923, but it wasn't uncommon to keep the patronym as a middle name like my grandfather did.
Off topic, but this makes me realize one of my grandfathers was born in the 1890s, which is possibly getting rare. Time passes swiftly by. This very day your life is shorter by one and all that.
I won’t forgot when my small child clarified that I was born in 19 something not 18 something, two equally remote times to him.
On the list my middle name was listed as a name going from male to female - I think the first time I have seen anything about this name out in print in public.
Long term, sure, but those newly-feasible jobs don't pop into existence in a day, or even a year. Short term, they flood the labor market and suppress wages.
They aren't, but if you look at retraining programs in coal country, you don't see a whole lot of success. So, while I'm sure mass retraining is theoretically possible, do we examples of where it's actually worked?
Related point - if the truck drivers aren't where the new jobs are located, that doesn't work. We should subsidize their move (via increased taxes on AI or corporations or whatever) but like WV, we probably won't. Assuming they even want to move.
People in "coal country" who can't get a job in a mine, do something other than mining. Hunger is a powerful motivator.
A $10 a month cell phone plan is all it takes to get 24/7 access to all the worlds information, and AI's intelligent queries into it.
And yes, you will have millions who never learn how to use said information to their own benefit, but we've known for awhile that poverty is a behaviorial problem as much as it is a resource problem.
Maybe the companies firing people or shutting down operations somewhere aren’t properly motivated to successfully retrain the people they are replacing? Lets lock up the CEO without food until they come up with an acceptable solution. I hear hunger is a powerful motivator.
> Maybe the companies firing people or shutting down operations somewhere aren’t properly motivated to successfully retrain the people they are replacing?
No, at least not in the US.
A corporation has a primary fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.
Every promise ever made by a corporation to an employee or customer was just "so much bullshit, subject to change" in order to fulfill their legal obligation to the shareholders.
It's always been this way, no matter how many employees or workers actually believed said promises.
People still think the grocery store sells food as well, when the reality is that the nutrients are removed and sold elsewhere, reducing satiety, increasing sales due to intentional malnutrition.
And your doctor isn't sending you down the road to wellness when he prescribes you GLP1 antagonists instead of a proper diet and exercise.
The CEOs and boards who operated this way survived.
The ones who didn't, didn't.
I don't know how you are going to change the dynamic.
Any change will have to be approved by the powerful survivors, who know exactly how their behaviors have benefited them.
You're asking the king(s) to step down as king(s).
Accomplishing it historically has required force and rarely ended as planned.
But overall I agree with you, that if we are going to make a systemic change, the change should benefit those with the least, at the expense of those with the most, because that is a path towards equilibrium, not away from it as we have been progressing since the mid 70's.
And, AI may actually reduce the status of the wealthy the most, given, the more the individual can do for his/her self, the less we need a "corporate brain trust" to make a widget for us.
Economically, AI could play out to be the force that reduced the oligarchs to the same status as the common man.
Sure, let's blame the economically displaced, not the billionaires who displaced them. Giving some serious "she wore a short skirt and had it coming" vibes.
How much better would the US or UK or wherever else be if our wealth of natural resources was shared instead of hoarded by private land-owners and SuperMegaCorp?
Norway drills about 1/4 of the barrels we do here in the US, but reaps more than double the revenue into public coffers. ~78% tax rate in Norway vs a published rate of 21% in the US (and a real rate of <10%).
True but even if it was 100% the amount of money per capita would be tiny compared to Norway. Only some of the smaller gulf states are comparable to Norway.
Increasing the tax rate by ~8x to match Norway would drop 60x to ~8x. What percent of Norway's per capita is from Oil & Gas? I have to imagine that 10% of that is actually still meaningful for an average American.
Government revenue wouldn’t increase by 8x. First increasing oil production in the US over the last 10-20 years required a massive amount of investment. Shale oil is much more expensive to extract so companies simply would have drilled less if they knew they couldn’t profit as much. Developing new wells is only profitable of oil is above $60-70, in Norway it’s up to 40-50% less.
Norway’s reserves are mostly conventional and much cheaper to exploit and develop.
Secondly even if corporations and their share holders get a much bigger share in the US a significant amount of that money ends up in the federal budget anyway.
So idk maybe 2-3x at best? Which of course is still a lot
Fender benders? Suspension wear? Brakes (yes, EVs still have them)? Rust/corrosion? Dead pixels? Torn/worn/faded interiors?
Heck, I just dumped an 8 year old BMW because the interior stitching was coming apart. Nothing mechanically wrong, just yellow fluff poking out of the seams. Easier to sell it than try to get it fixed.
No, between safety and emissions, a normal person effectively have to wait out the 25 year as spelled out in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988. Once you hit that, it's relatively straightforward to import the car (straightforward if you know how to do it, there are importers who specialize in this market).
There are some small exceptions for show cars (as is, never used on public roads) and similar things, but they all limit/prohibit use on public roads.
Even if you do wait the mandatory period or it was otherwise ok, if the government catches wind that you're trying to do something less stupid than buying the trash the current manufacturers are pedalling, they will clamp down. Kei trucks and the Mahindra Roxor are just more examples of why you can't run something more efficient down any road for various poor reasons likely because they cut into someone else's profits.
Yeah, that's the other problem... Kei cars/trucks, despite being 25 years old, have been banned in a few states because "safety" (even though you can buy a new motorcycle, or a US-spec 1950 whatever, etc).
You're probably, maybe ok for something like a 25 year old full-size car that doesn't look too wild (ie, could pass a a US-spec). Like a Japanese-market Lancer Evo, or Mitsubishi Pajero.
reply