They’ll almost surely attempt this, but it will be much less clear cut on it. There’s federal law against discriminating on the basis of genetics, so they can’t explicitly charge more for it.

But you better believe it’ll be a component in a deep learning insurance adjustment model that charges you more and just tells you the model says so — I’d expect this to occur and a court case to happen.

This is only partially true. Due to things like Henrietta Lacks cells (HeLa cells for those working in cell culture), we actually have informed consent around this. They can’t just use your samples for not consented collection purposes (though in some cases, the further testing may fall under the original consent)

HHS rules note:

“If the tissues are identifiable, then subjects must provide consent for the secondary use and that consent must cover the elements of consent in 21 CFR 50.25.”

That really only applies to healthcare providers covered under FDA and HIPAA regs.

Obligatory not a lawyer etc.

Would love to join a union. I’m in biotech though and don’t know of any. If anyone does, drop a message below!

Of course, although while that 7% is added to the cost of producing the car, other factors may not be as easily negotiable (say a fixed cost of steel or other raw goods).

I actually do agree on the sentiment that a car should not cost more given the labor negotiations.

My argument was just a generalization, and more to say that executive compensation also doesn’t make up a humongous amount of the cost of a car. Moreover, if somehow there is a lack of net profit to render back to the employees, and executive pay is already well controlled, then in such a scenario it may be reasonable to raise the cost of a good in order to adequately compensate the people who make it. In fact, I wish companies did this more instead of asking “how can I exploit labor to make this good more profitable?” And instead ask “is it reasonable to charge more to adequately pay people to live in my community that I do business?” But I digress, the point is simply that profits should be paid back to workers at least as much as profits are paid to shareholders and executives.

The only way employees see that benefit though in our system is in collective bargaining. I’d like to see more cooperatives though.

Rather it should come from a mix of executive pay, shareholder dividends, and a cost increase if warranted. Last year ford paid out like 25 billion in dividends. Not sure how much the contract is expected to add in labor costs, but if I’m a worker I’d expect a good portion of those dividends to go toward the workers and not shareholders.

Sure just like Hawaiian people could go back to the upper 48. You know just abandon their home, their livelihoods, their communities. No big deal surely to just give an aggressor nation whatever they want at the cost of all your worldly possessions.

Edit:

From before the paywalled section:

‘’’ “Suddenly, there is all this talk about underground shelters, about fleeing, and this makes this crisis feel more real. But if we leave, can we come back? Or will Yonaguni be wiped out?” asks Mr Otake, wondering if he will be able to hand down the business to his 14-year-old son. ‘’’

Later it mentions there are 1.4 million people in the potential war theatre zone. And yes the plan is to move them back to the mainland if they can, but that’s a monumental task to move that many people across disparate, disconnected islands, to say nothing of the potential impact of trying to integrate 1.4 million people into local communities.

I always understood it to be that things exist to be fruitful and multiply. In a sense, a person who does not love, who doesn’t multiply goodness in the world as Jesus modeled, was like the fig tree. Such things could be thought of as cursed, withered and twisted versions of what they could and should be.

I am not a Bible scholar though lol.

If taxes are robbery then using public infrastructure like roads without paying taxes is also theft.

Taxes exist because public goods are actually good, and benefit everyone. The sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts. Your taxes pay for roads and public transit which are used to get people to work to create wealth for a community. It turns out the thing that makes humans great is community and banding together. Taxes are a formal way of doing that.

Now, we need equitable taxes, but that would involve taxing the rich proportionally. This is economically sound because wealth doesn’t trickle down and the mega wealthy are, well, mega wealthy because they hoard wealth. That money would be better spent creating better roads, better public transit, better education, or in short, a better community. The prospect of a better community only upsets those who are not members of the community, because their insane wealth puts them in a different class, and those who think defending that class will somehow get them privilege. The only privilege we need is a better community.

Certainly a possibility, but I almost think US quietly supporting Ukraine will make it easier, since it won’t be in the far right zeitgeist as much. Ukraine needs financial and military support. Passing bills individually for Ukraine is getting harder. Tacking another line item on to a “Support Israel” bill that provides military and financial assistance to Ukraine may be easier than new bills aimed at just supporting Ukraine would be.

Edit: to be clear, I’m hoping Ukraine gets more support from this, as my personal view is strongly in support of Ukraine. I don’t know that this will pan out that way, but I see a potential angle for it if democrats have the savvy to do it.

I think Russia probably encouraged this, but I think it’s another miscalculation. America is set up at this point to fight proxy wars. Now all that happens is Israel weapons gets added as a line item alongside Ukraine on a defense budget bill that’s now easier to pass. So they may have been involved or just encouraged, but I think it’s gonna backfire.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whataboutism

Or the Oxford definition:

what·a·bout·ism /ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/ nounBRITISH the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

Edit: downvoting the actual definition from two external, highly authoritative sources that support my previous comments is certainly an interesting choice

Ignoring the ad hominem in your post, I never said Hamas was Palestine. I said that things done to Palestine are grotesque. I said this action by Hamas was grotesque, and replying to the original commenter that it was “almost as bad” as heinous acts done by the recipient of this evil act does not justify this evil act.

And the Holocaust has literally nothing to do with this discussion, as you mention. Better to make your point would be to actually discuss whataboutism as a definition and provide discussion for why making a counter accusational justification doesn’t qualify as whataboutism (note: the definition of whataboutism is literally responding to an accusation with a counter accusation in an attempt to side step the issue, which I believe is exactly what happened here, eg “this evil act (the accusation) is actually not that bad because of the other evil acts of Israel (counter accusation)”).

So my argument still stands to the tenets by definition, I never equated Hamas to Palestine (and in fact made the same point that acts done to them were also horrible), and never defended Israel or Hamas. I just don’t believe that killing civilians, or committing war crimes or attempting terror campaigns, is justifiable (by either side).

Saying “this is almost as bad” establishes a comparison, and in the context establishes justification for this event because of the comparator. So your response to the barbarism here is a tacit justification by comparison, or taken in another view, a counter accusation. Which is definitive whataboutism: responding to an accusation with a counter accusation.

What Israel does is as you described. But can we please not use whataboutism to try and justify barbaric behavior? This is grotesque. Things done to Palestine are grotesque. Let’s just call evil things evil and not try and say “hey cause someone else did an evil this evil is okay.”

Passing AP bio is a long way off from an MD, it’s just intro college bio. Still, the first part of the comment is fair, I think

That’s a good point, I don’t remember much ghosting on those. I guess it might depend on the phosphor used. If it was tuned to only fluoresce for that imperceptible off time and no longer it would probably work.

I guess it’s a similar idea to quantum dots, but if those quantum dots fluoresced for just a bit longer.

I think this would result in some pretty intense ghosting and other undesirable artifacts.