I don’t think there is much of a thought process. Or at least his actions are emotionally consistent but not intellectual consistent.

Being broken up with is painful, either as a sense of loss or as ego pain.

In order to make both disappear he needs to get back with you, but if he only cares about making the ego pain disappear he just needs to convince himself he is better off without you, and the easy way to convince yourself of something is to convince others.

So both actions are just him responding to (what I assume is) ego pain, neither of them are necessarily informed by his true perception of who you are.

Edit: none of this excuses his actions btw, it’s meant as a way to understand why he is saying cruel things and to understand that the things he is saying have no basis in reality.

How did your boyfriend talk about you to third parties while you were together?

On the assumption phevs have the combustion engine off unless they are in hybrid or performance mode:

I think it’s decisive because the article’s focus is fuel consumption but fuel consumption in phevs is actually just a proxy for driver behaviour. (Once you factor out differences between models)

So while the study does show that phevs technically have worse fuel economy in real world usage, it doesn’t show they use more fuel in either electric mode or in hybrid mode than previously believed.

The conclusion is useful for understanding the overall impact of phevs on petroleum consumption, air quality and global warming, but it’s misleading when evaluating what kind of car you should buy.

Since you know how you drive, learning new information about average driver behaviour doesn’t factor into your decision on what kind of car you buy.

The environmentally conscious answer is still no car if possible, electric if you need a car but most journeys fall within the range limit and phev if you need a car for frequent long range usage.

Tldr; it’s contentious because the article reports information useful for policy decisions to a general public who are making individual consumer decisions where the information is misleading.

Like most taxes it’s possible to do a progressive property tax, where the more your properties are collectively worth the higher rate of tax you pay. This doesn’t sound like what is being proposed here, but it is very-much possible and hopefully it gets changed before it’s passed.

Done right this will leave owner/occupiers in the same state they are in now, mildly reduce the profitability of small time landlords and make large scale landlords financial nonsense viable forcing them to sell.

The actual risk is that because it lowers house prices by artificially reducing the demand it won’t encourage housebuilding which is the only real solution when more people want or need to live in a place than there is housing.

That said, I am optimistic this increases supply enough by forcing sales of under occupied properties to offset the reduction in built supply.

Fixed, thank you.

Yeah, fair that is probably a truer reading of their intent, I will edit my post to refer to yours.

I would still argue that taking proven approaches that cut security services related murders by up to 98.5% is worth doing and dismissing that on the basis that anarchism if somehow implemented in the US would solve the last 1.5% is…

Well whatever, I don’t want to try to debate people out of anarchism, especially not here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_annual_rates_and_counts_for_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers

• Venuzela is 1st with 1829.9 per 10M
• USA is at 29th with 33.1 per 10M
• Poland is at 60th with 0.5 per 10M
• Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland and Croatia are recorded as 0

Declaring something happens in every country with armed police Is asinine when it happens 55 times more in some places and 66 times less in others.

When there are countries with such a dramatically lower rate of security services killing civilians there are important lessons to be learned there, rather than throwing up our hands and saying something like “well states will murder wherever states exist, don’t worry about it, it’s normal”. Edit: better characterisation in pupperdreams’ reply below

They are arguing the definitions with someone who was “arguing” with someone who lived through the reality

ICE are trump’s praetorian guard, a paid trip to Europe and the Olympics on company time is a reward for loyalty shown to the executive over the people.

Oh it’s easy;

Does doing it the correct way increase your workload but make the business more profitable in the short term? Do it the correct way.

Does doing it the correct way preserve your safety at the cost of operating efficiency? Do it the incorrect way.

The second kind of unfollowed rule is there as a liability shield, it’s so that if you get hurt the business can claim you weren’t following your mandatory training and they aren’t liable.

But if people did follow it then they would get a kind word from their supervisor saying we don’t have the time for that even if it is in the official training. Because the supervisor themselves is in a worse bind, they have to tell management that the new liability shield is being followed as it won’t work otherwise, but they are on the hook for the productivity of their team in such a way that they can’t allow people to follow the slow process.

I enjoyed their recent video on power law distributions and why they dramatically change how you should operate in those domains.

They also did some good content a short while ago explaining why Monsanto and Dupont are problematic.

That said you are right about the thumbnails since when I looked at the channel to double check that it was veritasium I was thinking of the title and thumbnail are completely different for all of them.