Probably because they signed a contract with Netflix in November a year or two ago to be available for Christmas of that year. Now that contract is expiring in November as a result.

I always appreciate the work you put into making sure the science is valid - like when you post follow up articles when something that got published turns out to not be reproducible.

Total value of all bitcoins: ~$41 billion.

Really good points in this article. I wonder how the health science community could handle this problem? Stop publishing studies where the funding came from a for-profit corporation?

For my writing projects, there’s a fine line between preparation and procrastination. I *do* need an outline, I *do* need to spend time getting to know characters in my head before I write. Trying to start a project before doing that stuff ends in disaster for me, or at least a lot more wasted time staring at a blank…

Seems like advice that’s good for some people, bad for others.

I’m not so certain. Nutrition is still a young science, and often completely reverses its stance on things - used to be that fat was awful for you and carbs were good. Now it’s the opposite.

Ah, I see. Yeah, the LH article does seem wrong, or at least worded very awkwardly. It would be nuts if they allowed you to take the standard deduction AND mortgage interest. That would be a massive tax break for a lot of homeowners.

Nah - the mortgage interest deduction is an itemized deduction. Same with charitable.

It could go part way to making the mortage interest deduction irrelevant. By raising the standard deduction and eliminating some state and local tax deductions, some homeowners are going to be pushed into taking the standard deduction. If more laws like this are passed in the future, eventually the mortgage interest…

My heart (metaphorical) loves the idea. My heart (literal) is less enthusiastic.

I don’t think a germ-warfare scenario is the intended place for these advisories. This is for things like hurricanes and earthquakes that disrupt the normal water supply.

You misunderstand me. I’m not quibbling over paying the secretary 100k or 200k. If you think the secretary is entitled to that entire $200k increase (which is also insane - there is no way they could possibly generate that kind of money without me, but for this example I’ll allow it) fine, they can have that.

“If you make all of the money, then you’d have zero need to hire anyone since you’re the sole person necessary to make that money.”

“If you need a secretary badly enough that you’d pay half of your operating profit, then they must be that essential to your operation to bring on as a co-owner.”

So let’s say I’m a sole owner of a business. I’m a writer, for instance. I want to continue doing 95% of the work, but I’ve grown tired of answering fan mail. I would like to hire a secretary to handle that small part of my business. Under your system, I can’t do this unless I’m willing to split all of my writing…

“They have the highest demand on any job search board.”

You’re using post WWII US, the most capitalistic society in the history of the world (to the point where they were terrified of communists and unions - ever heard of McCarthy?) as an example of socialism??

kay. I guess enjoy shutting out all opposing arguments to your very limited world view. Macro economics is an incredibly difficult subject, but I’m sure you’ve got it all figured out by spending a bit of time on the internet.

Why does it matter to you how much a political consultant makes? Someone values their skills very highly, and is willing to pay them for that. Isn’t that enough? Is it some great injustice that their skills aren’t valuable to everyone, but are very valuable to a limited set of people?