The business owner has the illusion of independence until he/she pisses off enough of their staff all at the same time that they walk out and there's nobody to open the store.
Something that was true in 2003 can be not true in 2026 with absolutely no contradiction. It’s a problem I’ve had multiple times with people getting bristly assuming that a push to replace a broken but “working” subsystem with something new and better necessitates a confession of guilt by the people who wrote the original system.
As problem domains scale up by orders of magnitude, as they have since Linus ranted on 2003, the correct solution changes. Sometimes several times. It was the right solution, but it might not be the right solution now, and both are correct.
After Prohibition was repealed, we didn't outlaw public drinking, but we did outlaw public drunkenness. There's only about a factor of 2-3 between the legal and the illegal activity. A fairly narrow margin between acceptable and excess, if you ask me. But it's not unique in that regard. We have the same kind of rules for interest rates, for instance. We accept this much, but not a larger amount.
Tonto, dunno who "we" is but around my metro area, public drinking is rather tightly controlled.
I am not really aware of the laws around walking down a public sidewalk with a beer in hand. It is certainly gauche but a done-thing to sit at a bus stop and have a Fireball or two.
However, any drinking establishment that serves alcohol will stop you at the door and won't permit anyone to carry drinks outside of their premises. That's a strict thing. My apartment community bans drinking in walkways and stairwells, which was probably done more by non-residents than my neighbors. So there are a lot of bans on public drinking, even if it is not blanket-outlawed.
A couple of major developments at the shopping mall, though: traditionally all American movie theaters were dry, but that rule has been relaxed, and even the major chains are serving alcohol now. At the mall there has been instituted a "sip & stroll" policy, where designated bars can serve you a plastic cup, and you can roam around the mall with drink-in-hand, as long as you observe the borders of it, where you can't walk into the parking lot or off-premises with your booze.
In general, I have seen many liquor-related laws be relaxed and lightened across my county and state. It seems that there's a general lack of will to crack down on the demand-side, when there is lots and lots of profit to be had on the healthcare-side, where you will get a diagnosis and medication and treatment, whether that is IOP or in-patient, so why not encourage more drinkers to overindulge? Broken window fallacy FTW!
tl;dr details vary by state and municipality, but with very few exceptions you can't walk around a random town drinking fireball. Or, well, you can as long as you don't get caught.
I've seen what you're talking about though. It seems like the big trend for millenials has been "<blank> but with booze." Barcades. Sip & stroll at malls. Booze in movie theaters. Paint & Sip. The microbrewery craze that's partly just "bars but make them fancy"
If you really want to get thrown for a loop, go read up about the Tavern League. One of the most powerful lobbies in Wisconsin state government is a massive cartel of... bars.
When laws are unjust, resistance is duty. And you usually have to come at them sideways, to delay while the wheels of justice slowly grind toward repeal.
Legislation gets easier once public opinion has turned against an idea or a company. But it takes a while to build that up.
I think I may agree with you here, but in this context can't you add more details? Your comment here is pretty high level and not specific to this topic or how we might go about trying to handle it.
I lived in a town that had two lakes. No water problems for decades. Two year drought brought the lakes down about 30 feet each, so it looked a little bit like Lake Mead. Water rationing in the second year, maybe the tail end of the first, I no longer recall. Brown lawns everywhere
The city finally got permission from the state and the Army Corps to divert water from a nearby river, but only when the river was at a relatively high rate of flow. So functionally what happened was that once the drought broke they were able to refill the lakes faster, and top them up during storms in wet/dry cycles.
Every place is going to have higher and higher odds of becoming water-stressed over the next three decades. Some places more than others. Will the data centers shut down in those situations?
You might think that using 5% of the municipal water supply isn't much but it's a significant fraction of what austerity measures would be able to conserve to retain water through a prolonged drought. In that situation holding water a few extra months until the rains return is the goal.
Let’s. You should know better than that by now. Rural states spend more tax dollars than they bring in. A lot of that is down to highways being really fucking expensive and making them go near the back of beyond more so.
Cities are more efficient and large enough to sustain culture.
If it was irrigation water, instead of drinking water, that would be about 26 acres worth of irrigated crops - in drought conditions.
If they were bypassing the municipal water supply or using post-wastewater treated water for their water usage, I'd be more blase about the situation. But farms are much thirstier than people.
Exactly. It's just like when we used to pay workers a living wage. Well where did all of those jobs go amiright?! Stupid peasants can be so annoying... we're just trying to bring everyone into the grand age of abundance!
Totally not a new robber baron era at all. That's just fake news guys.
Not sure which “stem cells” you mean, but I think the recipient’s immune cells colonize the graft. Which means they’d start attacking the original donor(graft versus host disease in reverse).
But you’re probably correct that the immune cells transferred would also be the same problem. But that’s what anti rejection drugs are meant to deal with, aren’t they?
Assuming two people have the same blood type, I believe the compatibility factors are reciprocal between two people, aren’t they? So if you and I are compatible, and of the same level of health, then if we swapped kidneys we should each have about the same risk factors for rejection.
But if as some people were asking, we took a transplanted organ and transplanted again, the compatibilities are not reciprocal any more, and I would not be surprised if you had to assay all three people to figure out the compatibility of the organ. Since it’s my tissue (and perhaps a bit of yours), your T cells, and the recipient’s immune system all having to get along, at least until your immune cells age out, and perhaps longer if the organ is chimeric.
ADHD results in a dopamine imbalance which results in the sort of novelty seeking behaviors they tend to exhibit.
Part of pubescence is incrementally transferring your reliance on your parents to reliance on your peers. Which is why teenagers test boundaries constantly. They have to divorce from their parents incrementally, and on their own timeline, not the parents’. Your brain has reward systems to encourage that, but can also be hijacked by substances, which is why we pay special attention to substance abuse in children. But there are many reasons for children to fail to socialize, some of them environmental, and a biological drive to fill that with something (including The Internet and “engagement” in particular) if it can’t be filled with social safety. And once it has begun it can be a feedback loop of intentionally choosing one over the other.
There are some models of addiction medicine that say that people with hope and connection have a much easier time giving up physical addictions than people who don’t. There isn’t enough stick in the consequences of addiction to get you out of the cycle. You need carrot to transition, and the bigger the carrots the easier the journey.
> There are some models of addiction medicine that say that people with hope and connection have a much easier time giving up physical addictions than people who don’t. There isn’t enough stick in the consequences of addiction to get you out of the cycle. You need carrot to transition, and the bigger the carrots the easier the journey.
I totally agree with this. And I think this is the part that's easy to miss in the narrative around how trauma and ADHD connect. Wherever ADHD traits originate, someone's desire to change matters.
If you love your job, but inability to concentrate is hampering performance, you're much more likely to WANT to change than if your job is merely a nuisance required for economic sustenance.
> Part of pubescence is incrementally transferring your reliance on your parents to reliance on your peers.
Is it? That’s a theory, but for the vast majority of human history there was a very different pattern and I don’t think we’ve changed enough since then evolution-wise to have instincts for a completely different life pattern.
Like, in hunter gatherer bands, there aren’t really “parents” in the modern sense through a child’s development. And then they don’t start relying on their peers, they’ve been with a mixed age group of siblings and cousins since the age of 3 or so. And then they slowly transition into being a member of the adult male or female group.
I don’t really know how what you’re describing would map into instincts from that ancestral life pattern.
reply