You still have to keep track of it and keep in mind how much of the total sum is not yours. That is a mental overhead and inconvenience, especially when the alien sum is a significant part of the total.
It does. What if in worst case scenario, you on on hook for something like alimony or fine payment, your accounts are being garnished, n now this unexpected money is also used for those payments??
More importantly to me (OP of this thread here), and of direct relevance to this story, is the fact that the money in question does belong to somebody. Presumably they want it! So me just doing nothing about it already feels bad.
Bad in an inactive kinda way, but nevertheless, something that I, as a good human, should feel sufficiently bad about to warrant my taking action.
By that logic everyone and everything is corrupt, monitored, etc. Including the hardware you might install your own VPN node on, all messenger apps, all phone lines, the mail, and so on. Your best friends are all spies. Your bedroom is bugged.
That would mean there is absolutely no way to improve your privacy and you might as well do nothing.
As others pointed out, this is break-ins, not cars being stolen. Typical cost of a break-in is one window. I have no idea how much that costs, but let's say $1000, which is probably 10x too much. That comes out to $1000 x 0.0364 = $36/yr.
This mindset that crime shouldn't be punished is so strange to me. Why is it okay for someone to go around breaking windows and stealing stuff? Because when the people realize they're suckers for following the law, they'll stop following the law, then everyone will be doing it, and there won't be enough police in the world to pick up the pieces.
It seems like you've read an awful lot into what appears to be nothing more than a copy/paste of a bio, with no suggestions whatsoever on how to feel about any of it.
There are exactly one-and-a-half points of his bio in the text (one being cut off halfway). The rest is a list of relatives. If that doesn't imply a judgement based on his relatives, it's just completely pointless.
>Are you seriously judging someone by their great-great-uncle's book?
Not the person you're referring to but barring exceptional circumstances the apple can only fall so far from the tree.
That said, I don't see why being raised by a family full of super hardcore leftists has more than a passing impact on his politics wrt petty crime specifically. He could just as well have fallen on the "we should go hard on petty crime because it undermines social cohesion and respect for the rules of the state" side of things (obviously that's not how he turned out for reasons that are well documented but you get the point).
In interviews he has said his experience growing up with two parents doing time for whatever it was (accessory to murder?) influenced his view on crime and punishment.
Oh cut out the strawmanning. Obviously (one would hope it's obvious) we don't want the one entity that can use violence to officially or unofficially judge people based on their parents but individuals are not held to the same standards and expecting people's values to at least be correlated with the values of the people who raised them is not unreasonable and it's a pretty decent rule of thumb.
>expecting people's values to at least be correlated with the values of the people who raised them is not unreasonable and it's a pretty decent rule of thumb.
I'm more of a "content of one's individual character" guy.
And I'm not an proto-human from 500,000 years ago who has to rapidly distinguish friend from foe or face a painful death on a grassy plain in what is now Ethiopia so I have the wonderful luxury of being able to evaluate everyone individually.
Expecting people's values to at least be correlated with the values of the people who raised them is unreasonable and it is not a decent rule of thumb.
It is prejudice.
Here's a pretty good analysis of Patanjali's statements on prejudice (Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (4.24-28)):
>Prejudice is always based on misperception, which comes from ignorance. Ignorance arises from being told a lie and believing it and then continuing to tell yourself and others that lie—deepening your belief in it to such an extent that it affects how you see yourself and the others whom you are prejudiced against, resulting in a distortion of the truth. Prejudice is a mental affliction that pollutes the mind with deception. To rid yourself of prejudice, you must destroy the lie at the root. Only knowledge can burn prejudice at its root and reveal the truth.
Of course, there are many philosophies that repeat this or something virtually similar to this, and have done so for thousands of years so for a happy, more ethical, less prejudiced life you can take your pick.
You call it prejudice I call it trying to understand the lens through which people who's upbringing and life experience is different than mine see the world.
The need for heuristics that allow people to make decisions about other people with an incomplete amount of directly pertinent information is not going anywhere. If you know what someone's upbringing was that's much better information than no information.
How long do US citizen stay with a single healthcare provider (/insurance)? If, say, only 50% are still with the same provider at age 50 as they were at age 30, there is a discount on the benefits of preventative measures compared to single-payer systems.
As a US citizen I can say that we change Healthcare providers whenever our current employer changes our Healthcare provider option. This can be every single year.
In what world are the majority of asset sales untaxed? Look at stocks, bonds, bitcoin, homes, art, gold, silver... All assets and all taxable upon realized gains and losses.
The study in the linked article (and lots of others like it) begs to differ. If sleep was merely convenient rather the biologically necessary, our cognitive functions would not become severely hampered after only a few hours less sleep. Nor would people die after (medically) losing the ability to sleep after x number of days.
Further, if it were true, overweight people very likely wouldn't need to sleep at all.
I believe they may be referring to the idea that not everything is consumed in the year it’s produced. Infrastructure, for example, is useful years or even decades after it is built (and, presumably, counted in GDP).
To make it concrete, if there are two people in the economy: Alice and Bob. The only products that are exchanged is clothes and shoes. Every year, Alice sells 100 Galleons of shoes to Bob and Bob sells 100 Galleons of clothes to Alice. So the GDP of their economy is 200 Galleons. But assuming that shoes and clothes don't decay in one year, Alice and Bob will become wealthier and wealthier in apparel every year.
