I'm no Musk fanboy, but it is funny you mention him not liking subways or high speed rail because didn't he try to build a subterranean high speed rail?
The hyperloop was a shit idea from day one and thus far no one has been able to make it work. It's also entirely possible that Elon Musk floated this as a distraction to stop the development of "regular" high speed rain in California[1].
The Las Vegas "loop"[2], on the other hand, is basically a parody of a subway - with a fraction of the capacity.
> In July 2021, the peak passenger flow was recorded at 1,355 passengers per hour.
As a comparison Toronto's subway can handle 28,000 passengers per hour[3] per direction or more.
Did I say it was a good idea? I was merely pointing out that there's evidence that he is not the best example for people that hate high-speed rails and subways.
>Stop the development of high speed rail in California
Do you have any evidence for this at all? That they are automatically awarded? We can discuss the low bar that O's seemingly have for earning some awards, but there is no reason to misrepresent the process. And I know at least one person that was awarded a Bronze Star without the V, even thought the award was for a specific valiant action they took, it's tough to say without reading the award or being there.
While anecdotal, every single O3 and higher in my company received one after our OEF rotation, despite spending their entire time on KAF and not at COPs or FOBs.
Here's an excerpt from the Military Times describing changes to awarding criteria:
"The policy changes also seek to tighten the criteria for awarding the Bronze Star specifically, a combat award that can be presented without a “V,” and often was throughout the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for “meritorious” performance.
And here's some details about Pete's own awards:
"The first Bronze Star was awarded to Mr. Hegseth for his assignment in Iraq as a rifle platoon leader in Iraq from September 2005 to July 2006. The citation noted his “professionalism and commitment to excellence” while he was with the 101st Airborne Division. He received the second Bronze Star in 2012 after serving as a counterinsurgency instructor in Afghanistan."
I think that's a strawman about my use of the word "automatic"; my point is that it's not indicative of anything special as they were awarded without needing a qualifying event like you'd see with a V device, silver star, LoM, MoH, etc.
Him denigrating fellow soldiers and being grossly unqualified to even communicate properly in his role are also concerns, but somewhat off-topic.
It is not a strawman, you literally said the awards are automatic, which is untrue on it's face. The vast majority of HN users are not veterans, and likely would not know that what you said is untrue.
Typing a comment isn't the same as providing a source; I've provided two that support my claim. You're welcome to try again, but it's too early for bad faith arguments so you won't get any more replies.
You literally misrepresented the truth then provided 2 articles, neither of which backed up you original claim. All because you evidently don't like someone. The only claim I made is that the awards are not automatic, which we both know is true.
Regardless, my source that Bronze Stars are not automatically awarded is AR 600–8–22.
> Prior to 7 January 2016, awards may be made to recognize single acts of merit or meritorious service.
Which corroborates my other claim - including the timing - about the tightening of criteria? Dang. That's wild. Good thing you have a source that you didn't link or apparently read.
What are you talking about? your original statement was that they were awarded automatically, now you are talking about the standards for awarding it, which implies it is not actually automatic. I said In my original response that we could discuss the standards, but your statement that they are automatic for O3-O4 is just plain false. Your sources do nothing to back up your original claim, in fact, they do quite the opposite. No level of snark will make your assertion correct. There is a reason why your original response was flagged, which I had no part in.
My point was that he served in Iraq and has more "real" experience than being a prison guard. This doesn't mean he has enough experience to run the DoD of course, but I wanted to add that because it's misrepresenting a vet who served a deployment.
Generally the expectation is that with a map, compass, and protractor a member of the Army should be able to navigate a land nav course(the simulation is very similar to the real courses). In practice, it's much more likely that a combat arms soldier would know how to use this than someone that works in something like cyber operations.
In my time in the Infantry we spent a significant amount of time working on honing landnav skills, both theory, and practice.
*Edit*
Also, there is already a manual for everything you do in the military.
Very cool. I did a few points, I will be using this to brush up on my land nav. The hardest part of land nav for me when I was in the infantry was pace count and maintaining my azimuth while moving, this makes those both super simple, but a very neat game, thanks for sharing.
Because it places the burden on those that are actually participating in the work force. What incentive do I have to work when the end result is similar if I don't?
The end result is not anywhere close to similar. UBI will never provide more than the basics. Food & rent and that's about it. If you want more than that, you'll have to work.
That's the point, I have a full time("good") job currently, and can barely afford food and rent for my family, I am literally selling plasma 2x a week for gas money, while paying a significant amount of taxes, so why would I work?
Now imagine getting by with a lot less. That's what UBI-only would be like.
I assume your main problem is that you're in a high cost of life area. A national UBI would almost certainly be set at a level appropriate for a median area. If you want to not work and maintain your standard of living you'd likely have to move to a low COL area.
with what money? we already do a lot of that with de facto negative tax rates for the lowest earners.
You bring up a great option though, I have been working to move to a lower COL(see rural) area already. Part of this plan is a draw down on my participation in the labor market, basically a necessity unless I want to commute multiple hours each way. We have gotten by on much less than I do currently, my QOL was very similar, but I was doing more work for myself and my family, rather than my employer or society.
Which is why I picked your comment to reply to. People have this inclination that UBI is going to provide a reasonable amount of money. But if you do the math you'll find that about $1500 a month is about the limit that's feasible. You want to increase the tax rate by an amount that has the average adult paying the same amount in extra taxes as they receive via the UBI. $1500 a month gets to European level taxation rates which I figure is about the limit of acceptable.
A couple can live on $3000 a month in some areas of the country, and perhaps a single person can live on $1500 a month in West Virginia.
But even at current levels of taxation I am looking for the exit because it is unsustainable. I am already deciding that the tax burden and COL is too high to justify my participation, and I am working on severely cutting my income and moving away from the city in order to be more self sustaining, and sharing less of my labor with everyone else.
*So my original question still stands, what incentive do I have to participate?
"If a small amount of my taxes goes to somebodies rent or healthcare, instead of paving roads for the Amazon trucks to drive on, or the FAA for the Amazon airplanes, them I might as well just be homeless myself!" What a strange argument.
As it currently stands ~40% of the profits from my labor is taken by my federal and state government and they are both running at a deficit. That's before accounting for state sales, property, and utilities taxes. It doesn't seem like a small amount currently, and the government's books are not even balanced at current entitlement levels. I have a really tough time coming to the conclusion that the governments would get better with more liabilities, especially when the largest UBI study showed less workforce participation, not more.
You are also conflating my position with that of one who thinks the current corporate protections are a good thing.
Satisfaction and drive to work. This actually happens all the time with ubi tests - people work more, not less. Turns out we're wired to try doing useful stuff on average.
And you benefit either way - lifting whole community and reducing homelessness and risky behaviour is good for everyone around, not just that one person. The burden of social issues has always been and will always be on the working people. Ubi doesn't change that part.
Because they're simply upending/ignoring Congressional mandates in the form of law. For example, Congress directed the creation of USAID as an independent agency in 1961. It cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat.
There are countless firearm receivers that have been printed on pla plus, many with thousands of rounds on them. Sure they may turn into a puddle in a hot vehicle, but they are functional and definitely take a load. Pla + is actually preferred in that community over the others you mentioned, although asa is becoming more popular, along with filled nylon alloys.
Where did you get the idea that their funding has been cut? Their appropriations have been steadily increasing for most years over the time frame you call out. In addition to the the congressionally appropriated funds, their "user fees" income has grown significantly to the point where it makes up a very significant portion of their total budget. The impact of almost half of their income coming from the orgs they are supposed to be regulating is _in my opinion_ a better place to look for them overlooking violations from their "users".
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44576
It's worth noting that the "user fees" component of the FDA's budget isn't growing primarily because the FDA has increased those fees, but because Congress have consistently authorized new categories of feeds corresponding to changes in the medical environment. That paints a very different (although incomplete) picture than the FDA raking in cash: they're collecting fees to compensate for a larger regulatory picture, including new drug classes and categories developed over the last 30 years.
Federal agencies don’t just get $X billion to be spent at the direction of the agency executive. Each program gets funded at a very low level.
I did some contracting for a federal agency, the area I was meeting with was a hot area… Aeron chairs, nice office spaces, new computers.
One time we had to cut through an office area on the other side of the floor that was being starved. 1970s orange carpets, DOS computers, people who looked like they worked in a coal mine.
Same agency, different budgets. IRS is the famous example, Republicans when they control the house always starve the enforcement division as much as possible.
This is the nature of government agencies. Budgets are set by inertia, not need or output.
When I worked for an agency, there was always a mad rush at the end of the year spending millions on useless crap. The rationale was that any budget surplus would be reallocated and cut from next years budget, putting future programs at risk.
Can you explain why you think user fees are a conflict of interest?
My understanding is that the FDA gets paid either way and have a monopoly on approval. It's not like the users will go somewhere else if they received an unfavorable ruling.
If it is just corporate profits the state and county sure piled on by increasing my property taxes 40% over the past 3 years. That's an extra $300 a month for me which is more than my car payment.
I prefer Facebook because I can do an impromptu background check on someone before trying to meet them with what is sometimes thousands of dollars in goods or cash. Also, at least in my area craigslist is pretty dead, and there are much better deals on FB.
