For jalapeños and other peppers, the pithy center is where most of the pungency comes from. It's also more bitter than the rear of the pepper. If you chop into quarters lengthwise, it's easy to cut the seeds and pith away from the flesh. You're the left with a milder, sweeter result.
... in case you're in an experimental mood.
shit like onions and actually use some real fucking spices from India and Mexico
... but... India eats a lot of onions... because as great as the spices are, onions are also great. You can have both. You should have both.
I don't want a one-time, 5% wealth tax. I want a recurring wealth tax. At 0.5%, such a tax outpaces the one time 5% in ten years.
I would settle for one time 5%... but it's just so short-sighted. 5% in one sudden movement is actually a big ask... and are we actually going to be able to pull that off more than once?
A recurring wealth tax 1) is better in the long-term, 2) is less disruptive to the stock market (which we should care about, as long as this is the sustem we have) 3) makes for a more predictable economic environment, so people with money might actually still want to live in CA.
In NYC the most surveilled areas actually have lower murder resolution rates.
There's really no way that could be a causal relationship. It'd be worth diving into the data to figure out which variables are related to each of these.
They included the Spotify logo. It's just rather than labelling the picture as "Fortunate Sons".
It’s okay to say you don’t know the answer but one is obviously not the right one. Not everything can be known.
To be clear, I'm not asking you to provide a "correct" solution because I don't know. YOU said someone was "intentionally failing to acknowledge [your] point about her “solution” being wrong."
You don't actually have a solution, and for you to pile blame onto someone who is already subjugated by a cruel government is just doubling the cruelty.
But if I were that involved...
That's easy to say when we're talking about one specific person in one specific high profile case. How many times do you think this kind of thing has happened since 2022?
How about this... instead of patting yourself on the back for "would've done the right thing," when you already did nothing... you just... keep doing and saying nothing? Because you want these restrictive laws to be changed, right? You want this problem to have never been an option because she was able to just go to a doctor first, right?
Saying and doing nothing is more helpful for making that change, than you entering this conversation by blaming the victim of bad policy.
... Let's unpack this.
Person points out this is just another case of wealthy and powerful people stirring up trouble between two groups of people. This is easy because people are easy to trick. If the headline is to be believed, even AOC, who isn't stupid, believes boomers are the source of the problem.
You point out that, based on the people you know, there's a conflict between boomers and millennials.
but... that's not proof that the source of the problem actually IS either group. It's still the case that this conflict is caused by a third group of people who have a vested interest in making sure the poors fight each other.
We all agree what got here there. No need to repeat that.
I disagree. I think it's worth repeating that the STATE failed. I think it's worth repeating that I hold the STATE to a higher degree of scrutiny than I hold a desperate teenager. The reason I think this should be repeated is that some people only understand policy in terms of rational people making rational decisions, when that describes absolutely no one who has ever lived.
The policy is bad, in part, because it will cause people to make mistakes.
The correct solution would have been pretty much anything that...
I don't need every solution to be listed. I just want one specific solution that you think is the/a correct solution.
What would a correct solution have looked like, in your opinion?
My opinion is: this should have been a decision involving a doctor, but the state made that impossible. Whether she made a bad decision or not, the state failed first, and I, personally, hold the failure of the state to a higher level of scrutiny than the failure of a pregnant teenager.
Well, it's the aggregated opinion of people who use the site. Kalshi doesn't set the price; people making the bets set the price based on the odds others are willing to accept.
There's a sampling bias for sure, but since the odds given for this bet are based on how much people are willing to pay for that bet, this gives a very good approximation for how people actually feel about something.
It actually ends up being more reliable than most opinion polls in that way.