Right, so not to put words in varispeed mouth. But their claim is that Right-to-repair that doesn't give you the Right to repair what they want the right to repair is deliberately deceptive and, thus, fraudulent.
The damages would be that the product that they wish to repair are irreparable.
I don't know what to tell you apart from that's not what 'fraud' is in practice. Things being not what you want and someone having spent money does not equal fraud. You can't just pick a legal term and interpret it as literal English without any knowledge of the actual precedent around it.
I don't know if you think the entire legislation is the words 'right to repair'? It obviously isn't - it's far more nuanced than that.
> You can't just pick a legal term and interpret it as literal English without any knowledge of the actual precedent around it.
That's exactly what you are doing. You responded to somebody typing literal English with an spurious debate about a legal term no one asked about and is different depending on what jurisdiction you live in.
The problem is that our system is broken. Wildly popular policies can't pass because of republican obstructionism in the senate.
Worse, the senate is hugely anti-democratic. It's not 1/3-1/2 of the population; its the reps of 4/25.
""The 25 most populous states contain nearly 84 percent of the 50 states’ total population. So 16 percent of the country controls half of the seats in the United States Senate (and that’s not accounting for the fact that DC, Puerto Rico, and several other US territories have no representation at all in Congress).""[1]
>25 most populous states contain nearly 84 percent of the 50 states’ total population. So 16 percent of the country controls half of the seats in the United States Senate
Not really, the flaw here is seeing each "blue state" as 100% blue and each "red state" as 100% red. A blue state can be simply a matter of a single blue city surrounded by red counties. The holdout states give a voice to the people in holdout counties whose lifestyles are at the whim of a super-majority in the city.
I prefer a government that does as little as possible and leave it up to each local population to do what's best for themselves. This thread, after all, is about the federal government abusing its people with the war on drugs. Changing the faction in charge and making things even easier for them doesn't solve that problem as that faction is then subject to corruption too.
Whether government corruption is inevitable is frankly irrelevant to the broader question of political representation. I understand very well the (R) v (D) distinction is predominantly Rural v Urban. I believe in democracy and, as such, believe that people, not land should vote. Any system that is as so incredibly unrepresentative is unjust.
If 1% of CA moved to Wyoming; Wyoming would be majority Californian. Them having equal representation in a co-equal political body is insanity. Wyoming has a population half the size of the city of San Jose.
> The holdout states give a voice to the people in holdout counties whose lifestyles are at the whim of a super-majority in the city.
Every non-geographic minority group in this country somehow manages to deal with this problem. What makes rural conservatives require such a truly exceptional level of representation?
A large number of teachers need second jobs, that hardly strikes me as highly-paid especially as many(most?) teachers have master's degrees.
Further, "summers off" is not really correct given curriculum development, PD, grading and the like which often extend far past the end of the semester.
Most teachers only have a bachelor's degree according to BLS, the same level of education required to be a detective. Most of my high school teachers used the same curriculum year after year, even including the USSR on maps they would hand out with instructions to ignore it handwritten on the top of the page. None did any grading over the summer as school was out and no work is being produced by students.
My point here is that groups in the US often say either teachers are underpaid and cops are overpaid or the other way around but a simple Google search shows they make about the same. I've never found someone making this claim that could tell me how much either made, just that it was either too much or too little.
If you feel teachers are undervalued, fine but teachers being underpaid and cops overpaid simply isn't logically consistent.
> If you feel teachers are undervalued, fine but teachers being underpaid and cops overpaid simply isn't logically consistent.
I'm not making this claim. But this statement has no logical problems, at least not as stated. Just because they might be paid a similar amount (or even if teachers are paid more) doesn't mean that the statement isn't logically consistent.
For example, Lebron James gets X and Nico Mannion gets paid Y (which is much less than X). Many still argue that Lebron is underpaid and Nico maybe overpaid. They deliver different value, and there's the notion of scarcity to provide the level service they provide.
If you think the average teacher (or some percentage of teachers) provides more value then the average cop, then you could make that statement and it not be logically inconsistent.
Unfortunately both have civil servant types of roles, which are hard to valuate in terms of financial impact.
That's because of the history of coal mining/factory jobs in KY. When The coal jobs dried up and the factories closed a fair portion of the people who were previously employed dropped out of the labor force and never went back.
The other piece is this:
Population of Texas in 2020: 29,360,759
Population of Kentucky in 2020: 4,477,251
>>Always buy generic drugs, they're exactly the same.
I'm sorry to say. This is false.
This will be a bit technical but often, generic drugs are a racemic mix (both L and D conformations in some mixture) where as a branded drug may be a specific conformation or specific racemic mix (e.g. 75% L, 25% D.)
The issue comes from the fact that L-conformations may have different (better, worse, otherwise) effects than the D-conformations.
TL;DR Not all generics are the same as their branded counterparts and they might effect you differently. Caveat emptor.
I'll do my best to explain. So in chemistry, there is a thing called 'chirality' essentially this has to do with how a molecule is shaped. It's assessed by how a beam of polarized light that is passed through a molecule rotates.
There are a few different types:
Achiral, no change
Levorotary (L), Rotates anticlockwise
Dextrorotary(D), Rotates clockwise
The reason that it matters and what I was talking about above is that the sites in your body that a drug interacts with aren't universal. So if you have a (L) version of a drug that might have different effects and interactions than a (D) version.
A 1:1 mix of both (L) and (D) is called a racemic mix.
When you are talking about Brand name drugs, you're typically discussing a particular mix (e.g. Adderall XR is a 3:1 (D):(L) mix) or a particular conformation. That is not necessarily true with generics which may have a different ratio of (D):(L).
To give an example of how different the effects can be: Penicillamine (L) is used in the treatment of primary chronic arthritis.
Penicillamine (D) not only has no therapeutic effect, it is highly toxic.
If generic drugs have a different L:D ratio and L molecules have a different effect than D molecules, then surely the generic has a different effect and result than the brand name which would make or the other work better. Wouldn’t that come up and be an issue leading to either reformulating the generic to better match the brand name, or pulling the generic altogether?
> To give an example of how different the effects can be: Penicillamine (L) is used in the treatment of primary chronic arthritis. Penicillamine (D) not only has no therapeutic effect, it is highly toxic.
I think, as a layman, Thalidomide is probably a good striking example.
One chirality does what it says on the tin. The other causes babies to be born missing limbs and with other birth defects.
In theory, if we could produce Thalidomide with only the correct isomer, it would not only be effective but 100% safe for pregnant women.
Fwiw, I have a degree in chemistry and it never occurred to me that generics would potentially have a different chiral mixture to the original.
Given that we know (like you point out) that different enantiomers can have very different effects, it seems particularly dangerous for generics to be marketed as alternatives to the branded drug when, in some cases, they really are not.
Sure, but you also need to pair it with free Gov issued IDs for all individuals. The Voter fraud canard is a red herring when electoral fraud is an order of magnitude worse.
This is an interesting point of view that I hadn't considered before. Thank you for making this argument. How do you square your ideas with musical genres like dubstep, likely not the best example but the one that springs to mind, that lack some or all of these features and are still beloved by a subset of the population?
Would the variance in taste not imply that beauty itself is subjective?
Thanks for the kind response. I would say that variance in taste or popularity does not imply beauty at all. Something can be popular but not beautiful. Just because something is popular does not make it beautiful. People liking lots of different things does not imply that all these things are beautiful or that beauty is subjective, relative or meaningless.
Because the devil is in the details. Covid != Rhinovirus. If you asked why HIV is treated differently than crabs you'd get a similar response. Not only is the severity different, they are different diseases and so have different effects.
