I think the argument is that it should be illegal to pass out lying across 4 subway/metro/tube seats.

And that is because it is not polite to take up more than the minimum space needed. (Like using seats for your bag, or putting your feet on the seat across from you.)

Should everything that is impolite be illegal?

You can be impolite at your home as much as you want but in public spaces we need to enforce politeness with harsh punishments.

I suspect it will be more difficult to increase the price to above actual cost if there is capacity for alternatives.

I feel a bit silly, but I do not understand how the results were verified.

An added benefit of voter id is that by making it easy or cheap for one groups and difficult or expensive for an other (or choosing acceptable IDs that already have these characteristics) you can create some friction to make it more difficult for the wrong people to vote.

That is why I like voter ID if it relies on documents provided for free with minimal fuss.

The situation you describe, where the laws would be selected to make obtaining a photo ID (and thus voting) difficult for one group over another, would amount to a poll tax — which has already been found unconstitutional in the United States.

However, every US state I'm aware of (if you know of exceptions, please let me know) has some form of photo ID you can obtain for free. Usually it's in the same format as a driver's license, and obtained from the same place (the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Land Transportation, the name varies). There's a fee to obtain a driver's license, but a photo ID card (in the same format as a driver's license but marked "NOT LEGAL FOR DRIVING" or similar wording) can be obtained for free, by going through the same process as getting a driver's license (bring something to prove your identity, get your photo taken, wait for the card to be printed) but without taking a driving-skills test.

And before someone asks "what about the people who can't prove their identity"? Well, I can actually give an anecdote. I know someone who ended up in that situation: away from home for college, couldn't get her birth certificate or anything else, and needing to replace her passport that was lost. (She is American but had grown up overseas because of her parents' job, hence why she had a passport but no driver's license when she went off to college). She had quite a time of it at first, since every "prove your identity" requirement circled back around to another form of ID. But she was eventually able to get a fishing license just by swearing under penalty of perjury that she was indeed (name). With that in hand, she got another form of ID (I think a library card, though there my memory is iffy), then with two forms of ID she could get something else, and then eventually she was able to get that non-driver's ID card... and then was able to prove who she was to get her lost passport reissued.

That all happened nearly 30 years ago so I can't swear to the details. But the point is, photo ID cards are widely available, and it's normal to be asked for one. So as long as the law specifies that acceptable forms of photo ID include X, Y, and Z (where X, Y and Z are forms that most people would already have, and that are normal and in common use), and as long as at least one of those forms can be obtained without a fee (which as I said, is true in all U.S. states that I'm aware of, please mention any exceptions you know about because I'd like to know) then it will pass Constitutional muster.

Steelmaning it: perhaps people who cannot write to save their life are tired of grammar Nazis correcting them? (Admittedly since the llms I have noticed less and less people being pedantic about these things, perhaps it is like the ill fitting cupboard door signaling that this is handmade)

If I instruct an employee to prioritize my profit in a way that opens both of us to criminal prosecution, there is a non zero chance of them whistle blowing or even cooperating with the authorities to prosecute me.

I don't see such a path with an llm.

And most people do not have guards and dogs walking around the perimeter, but we still blame the burglars for breaking in their houses.

Arguably when left alive your health is by definition better than the alternative.

I suspect you mean the good health for a few months before death compared with a worse health during and after treatment. Still I had to make the quip.

No — I meant worse health.

You die in both scenarios, you live slightly longer (eg, 8 months versus 6 months) and during the overlap, you are less healthy than you would have been. Losing 6 months of seeing family, enjoying trips, etc due to side-effects from treatment just to live 2 months extra, but incredibly ill the whole 8 months.

In my perspective: you experienced less total QALY by taking the treatment and had more time, in worse health. Even counting those 2 months at zero, the non-treatment option experiences more vitality, in total — because 2 sickly months at the end doesn’t offset 6 months of lost vitality immediately before.

QALY optimization doesn't necessarily optimize for quality of life like it claims on the tin, it optimizes for quantity of life. Would you like 1 year and unknown discomfort or 10 years and a colostomy bag?

Near end-of-life interventions (in the US) tend to be unnecessary and leave patients worse off, and it's done because hospitals and doctors are greedy.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surgery-near-end-...

Everyone will die. The question is whether, say, two extra months spent in a miserable state is worth it.

Same experience here, but it only works in some fields like physics and maths. it totally fails in fields that are "made up" with no rhyme or reason.

I see an opportunity for an import hurdle masquerading as a security compliance mark on all Chinese imports.

I doubt it will be implemented as there are no western cheap gadget industries left to lobby for it, and the big players would prefer the fud of buy cheap be tracked.