But why? They weigh slightly less, but take up a seat. Why should a child be subsidized. Planes are typically full or close to full. The airline doesn't really care what age the butt is in the seat, just that it's a revenue passenger.
Yeah, and as someone who just travelled with three young kids I don’t think my party cost the airline less than our number of seats, probably a lot more. We required more attention from staff, made a bigger mess, and didn’t bring less stuff per person just because the kids are small.
Kids are already subsidized with free gate checking of strollers (to be fair, so are other things like skis on Alaska).
You all have some fair points. I was thinking about it as more of a business opportunity for the airlines to attract more families to fly over driving. As I said before the economics start to become more prohibitive to fly vs driving the more passengers. Its not unreasonable to think this way. Airlines give out other incentives for loyalty or just generally having enough airline points. Why not like family packages to attract families that wouldn't otherwise go to get more business
My solution: if play has to stop because you're rolling around, you are clearly injured and must be substituted. This would fix a lot of the fakery I imagine.
Again, sounds like someone that has not actually played. There are times where you just need a damn minute. The rule saying that if you require having someone come look at you on the field means you must spend at least one minute on the touchline before being allowed back on is fine. The ref accounts for that time of stopped play to extend play in what is known as stoppage time. There are plenty of times where the player is not actually looking to stop the play, and the ref doesn't stop play. There's other times where you actually need the magic spray. Of course, there are times where your team just needs a break in play to regroup.
You haven't addressed the problem of availability. It's one thing to go to the track physically to bet, vs having the track in your pocket available 24/7 with wagers on literally everything.
Do I think betting addiction will be as bad or prevalent as alcholism? Probably not, yet it's worth considering restricting it for social good. Just like we don't let 13 year olds buy bottles of whiskey.
In addition to the sibling comment, I'll say that environmentalists have opposed nuclear energy for half a century, despite it being far better than coal or ng in terms of emissions. I'd say that the venn diagram intersection of burners and opposition to nuclear is significant.
Environmentalism comes in at least two forms. IMO they are entirely different things.
One form is science-based and concerned with finding out how to engineer our civilization to be more sustainable and compatible with the Earth's ecosystem. That faction has been mostly either pro-nuclear or at least open to it when renewables aren't enough or aren't ready.
The other form is a romantic back-to-the-land anti-industry or even anti-civilization movement. It's opposed to nuclear because it's a "techno-fix" when the real answer must be abandonment of high technology and advanced civilization and a return to pre-industrial (or even pre-civilization Paleolithic) ways of life. For this group that's the only acceptable answer. Finding a solution to climate change that didn't involve abandoning industry or growth would be bad, since it would allow "business as usual" to continue.
Returning to pre-industrial or pre-civ times would require the deaths of billions of people, since you can't support these populations without industry, but they don't mention that. That's the quiet part.
The second group is mostly the group that has opposed nuclear power. A few have even opposed wind and solar power, believe it or not. It sounds ridiculous but look it up. You can find cases, albeit more fringe than anti-nukes.
The second group also horseshoes around to the far right in some cases. Anti-vax and general anti-medicine ideology and the idea that we need to be "natural" in everything was originally something more associated with these types of greens, but today it's part of MAGA. There'a also an offshoot known as ecofascism. Look it up, it's also a thing. Also search up "Savitri Devi," a very odd crossover figure here.
The second type is also inherently misanthropic. Their ideal is some Eden without humans at all. _Any_ human impact is morally wrong to this type of environmentalist.
Contrast that with the conservationist hunters, sportsman, fisherman, etc. who wish to conserve natural environments with a keen eye towards sustainability and ecosystem health. Human intervention in culling herds can actually be a kindness to animals whose predators have been eliminated, yet some will oppose it regardless of what the Department of Fish and Game and other scientists suggest simply because it involves hunting and eating meat.
Cutting off the nose to spite the face... which rhymes with the nuclear debate here.
I'm pretty sure the actual second group is vanishingly small, it just seems larger because people in general don't know anything about anything so they will be vehemently against nuclear simply because they don't actually know that it's clean energy.
Similar to the "data centers use all the water" people. I saw a Facebook post with thousands of people raging against Nevada/Las Vegas data centers because they were being blamed for the region's dwindling water supplies - googled it and less than 1% of the water used in the area goes to the several dozen data centers. Seems to me like there's probably a lot of bigger fish to fry but I didn't look into it any further.
People are sheep. They jump on whatever bandwagon that happens to cross their path at the right moment. Almost everything people complain about they're just wrong about. It's actually insane scrolling on Facebook these days, it's just an endless stream of bullshit with hordes of NPCs raging about shit they know nothing about and every now and then there's a person with a functioning brain trying to spread some knowledge but it's obviously futile.
Most people can't tell you how taxes work even though they have been paying them their whole lives and complain about them constantly. They will happily tell you a bullshit story about "their friend" who passed on a pay bump because it would increase their taxes and reduce their after-tax income.
It's honestly so fucking frustrating. I mean nobody knows everything but as someone who has a decent overview of how the world works, who understands most important things at at least a basic level, it's just blisteringly obvious that the average person does not understand almost anything. They just got hooked into something at some point, somehow, and now that's their identity. Pretty much exactly like religion. Whatever cult they happened to be born into is obviously the only correct one, they'll ignore any and all evidence and arguments because it has nothing to do with reason. It's their identity and that's that.
Maybe it's good, but I'm going to keep questioning. They are vying for market share. If they cornered it I doubt they would be so open. Morals should not be conditional
That's like saying the Dewey decimal system is creepy because it doesn't change. That's the point! A reference should be where you left it. Why must it change?
I meant rebuild civilization for myself, say lost in Alaska or something. Though maybe there's a market for tablets with all the youtube survivalist, building, and technology re-creation out there. ;)
It still gets cold in the winter (negative 15-20 degrees F) where I am, and even though we had a relatively mild winter, ticks are about the same.
There's a tendency today to attribute everything to climate change, but it should be backed by actual data. It's a sort of attribution bias that to me just feels lazy.
There could be a lot of reasons why ticks might spread. I have lived here 10 years, and haven't noticed an increase or decrease in ticks year over year. Just my anecdata.
> explanations should be backed by data, it's lazy otherwise
> I personally haven't noticed an increase
The relationship between temperature, wetness/humidity, and tick range is extremely well-understood. Altitude is not a relevant variable compared to and controlling for temperature and humidity.
We know under what conditions different tick specie thrive versus die, and we know that as the years go on, there are far more areas under "tick-thriving" conditions for far longer periods, at least for the disease-carrying tick specie that we tend to care about.
No one mentioned anything about climate change except you, reflexively and defensively, for some odd reason.
It's a fact, though. You got too hung up on altitude, which I guess is just a proxy for temperature when I compare to neighboring towns. Been mentioned on the news etc that more and more towns get disease bearing ticks here, due to conditions for them getting better with global warming. Not sure why hearing a negative effect from global warming triggered you so?
I merely attempted to point out nuance, that mono-causal explanations are lazy and perhaps ignore other factors that might go into the increase of ticks. Ecosystems change for all kinds of reasons, climate change among them.
I didn't make any claims that temperature or moisture doesn't affect tick populations, but maybe there are some other factors at play. For instance, lack of predators for ruminants and rodents, also perhaps human caused, but unrelated to climate.
This thread proves one again that nuance is lost on the internet.
No, I know for a fact the cause where I live is the climate, they can now survive where they earlier couldn't. Sure, there may be other reasons other places, but that wasn't what I wrote. I wrote about my town. Why that is so hard for you to grasp is honestly baffling, heh.
Ghandi once said during a visit to the west, "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians". It is not irrational to question movements you might nominally agree with but that manifest in immoral or inconsistent ways.
reply