But no good student who approaches the grad school process in a sane manner is going to work for a professor whose students stay there for 12 years and don't graduate. A common thing for deciding if you want to work with someone is seeing how long their students took to graduate, where they ended up, emailing them, etc.
I feel like most guitarists are so extra about equipment. Most good guitarists I know will sound fine playing mediocre guitars through cheap amps, while a bad guitarist is just not going to sound good on anything
My grandpa is into his 80s without many health issues while drinking occasionally but not everyday or anything. His brothers all loved drinking more and died earlier in much worse condition. Hence I will just drink smaller amounts of alcohol and not obsess over such issues
Its not a retoric, its according to the latest science. There is this social perception that drinking in moderation is ok for human health and even beneficial, when in reality alchool is a toxic substance with no known safe usage limit.
Cancer in western countries are in general the highest compared to other cultures, so having an average rate among the highest in the world is not saying much.
No. Alcohol is a "known carcinogen", and there seems to be no minimum dose below which it does not affect cancer risk.
That says nothing about the potency. Just like nitrates and cured meat products in general. We know that they do affect the risk of contracting cancer, but the potency is quite low, compared to something like tobacco smoke or radiation exposure.
A lot of the things people consume everyday are "toxic substances", depending on the dose. Almonds can kill you, so can apple cores.
Is alcohol to blame for higher rates of cancer in western countries? Probably not, as people in other parts of the world also consume a lot of alcohol, it's a human constant and not unique to the western world.
Moderate and responsible consumption of alcohol has extremely minor effects on physical health, but the social and relaxation benefits are immense. If having a cold beer after work helps you to de-stress and relax more for the rest of the day, that's a net positive. I would posit that stress is a lot more dangerous than occasional consumption of alcohol. I am absolutely not defending binge drinking and abuse.
There is a lot of modern-day puritanism and outright shaming going on lately, of everything that is deemed to be "unclean" or "unhealthy". It's not a good state of mind to be so judgmental of other people.
In the end people can do wathever they want, its their live after all.
There are other ways to reduce stress, like finding remote work or changing jobs.
The problem is that one beer quickly becomes two, 3 and 4 and there are a lot of people that just cant control it, its almost never just one beer.
I wish alchool would become like cigarretes: at least everyone knows it causes cancer, some people still use it and thats up to them.
But with alchool we are not there yet, a lot of people still dont know it causes cancer and there is no safe usage limit, they even think that it has some beneficial health properties, everything in moderation.
I wish it would be so socially acceptable not to drink, as it is to drink. In a lot of places, you are actually socially expected to consume alcohol, still today, which is insane given what we know about the link between alchool and cancer.
Don't blame poor self control on the drink/cigarette/junk food, it's a personal choice to indulge. Obviously if you can't control it, stay away. But please don't start any legal changes or persecution that affects the large majority that have absolutely no issues managing their intake.
If you find that the company you keep consider it unacceptable to not drink alcohol, you really should find other people to hang out with. Seriously, they're a bad influence.
I'm glad that everyone I hang out with don't give a shit if you drink alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages, as long as you're a nice person to hang out with. If there are people whose company you can only stand when one or both of you are drunk, something's seriously wrong.
Property taxes are indeed a direct tax on one of the most significant forms of wealth in the US. Most equity for the average American family is their home. It doesn't make sense to tax people with greater property and generational wealth a tenth as much as younger people with less wealth.
And yes, there should be and are higher taxes on tech workers, inasmuch that there should be and are higher taxes on people with greater incomes. To an extent, at least. That is also directly taxing income, as you said.
We've already seen the prosperity of the mid-20th century in regards to high upper tax rates and social spending, and we've seen the Kansas tax cut experiments when it comes to dropping them all and absolutely ruining the state. These aren't theories or opinions anymore, they are fact.
To clarify, I don't think taxes should be based on age or anything. But when you have something like prop 13, it isn't explicitly worded to tax people based on youth, but that is the obvious outcome of the situation. And that's ridiculous. A wise nation do not devour their young.
