swansont

I think the question is who literally pays the tariff, i.e. how is it collected by the US. The consumer will pay more to the retailer, and the retailer pays more to the importer, who pays the tariff to customs. “When the U.S. imposes tariffs on imports, U.S. businesses directly pay import taxes to the U.S. government on their purchases from abroad” https://taxfoundation.org/blog/who-really-pays-tariffs/ “A tariff is a tax on imported goods. Despite what the President says, it is almost always paid directly by the importer (usually a domestic firm), and never by the exporting country. Thus, if the US imposes a tariff on Chinese televisions, the duty is paid to the US Customs and Border Protection Service at the border by a US broker representing a US importer, say, Costco.” https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/what-tariff-and-who-pays-it Nobody is going to pay a tariff without adding it to the cost of goods. And I’m shocked, shocked to find out that Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and lying about some foreign country paying for it.

Which is a confirmation of the details of Meissner effect, not dark energy, or these proposed particles.

Which is theory. What experiment would confirm this?

The rules require information to be posted here. The Meissner effect is experimentally confirmed. How is this proposal to be experimentally confirmed?

Even if that were the process, why wouldn’t the Chinese government charge the manufacturer? Do you think they would just fork over the money? Why do you think the article talks about consumer prices going up? Why did prices actually go up when Trump did the before? https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/trump-s-washing-machine-tariffs-are-costing-americans-almost-100-n999461 “A little more than a year after President Donald Trump slapped a 20 percent tariff on imported washing machines, new research finds that American shoppers have been the ones to pay the price. A study conducted by two researchers at the University of Chicago and a Federal Reserve Board Governor found that washers cost an average of 12 percent more after the imposition of the tariffs, or roughly $86 to $92 more per appliance.” Domestic manufacturers took the opportunity to raise their own prices to pad their profits.

How does the consumer avoid paying? If the monitor costs $500 and you slap a $300 tariff on it, they will raise the price to $800, or to whatever preserves their profit. They aren’t going to just eat the tariff and export at a loss. ”China will pay” is just Trump’s gross ignorance of how this works. Or another lie to sell to his marks (or a combination of the two)

Your example is one version of ranked choice. As the link says, there’s more than one way to do it; they focus on the most common one. I was pointing out that there’s a name for such systems The problem with allowing 10/0/0 is it potentially leaves you with the same problem you have in the paradox, since it allows casting a vote for only one candidate. You need to force actual ranking

“Every 30 minutes spent standing beyond two hours increases the risk of circulatory disease by 11%” emphasis added.. That seems important. It suggests that it’s movement vs being sedentary/stationary (I also add quotation marks to the OP)

! Moderator Note Yes, we saw price spikes during his administration from the tariffs he implemented. Is there a discussion to be had here?

So a recessive tax on the poor, who can least afford to take the time to vote. Even if this is internet-based, they’re more likely to not have home access and need to take time to go somewhere to participate

Same with sci-fi. We get people here asking how to reconcile their plot idea with science, and I think that only leads to trouble; what they are proposing isn’t possible. When you try and explain how it works or what the rules are, you are just exposing the inevitable contradictions.

How do you avoid “survey fatigue”? https://blog.hubspot.com/service/survey-fatigue “Survey fatigue is when respondents lose interest in your surveys due to the large number of survey requests they receive or the number of questions and effort required to complete them. Fatigue usually leads to low response rates, rushed completion, or abandonment, which can affect your survey results”

At one point phone polling called landline phones, which skewed the demographic older, since younger people were more likely to only have a cell phone. And I think older folks are more conditioned to answer the phone when it rings, so the response rate might still skew toward older respondents even if they call cell phone numbers.

Where did you get that? Trump is not a credible source of data. “At least 65 troops died in hostile action” under Trump https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/13/trump-falsely-claims-no-terrorist-attacks-no-wars-during-his-presidency/ He escalated engagement in existing conflicts https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/20/trump-the-anti-war-president-was-always-a-myth/

Nobody has said that, so this is moot. Focusing on murder, or any other generally recognized harmful behavior, misses the point (and you’re the only one bringing it up). Outlawing/forbidding such actions lends legitimacy to the power structure. It’s other behaviors you need to focus on - ones without a secular purpose, or aren’t for the general good. If you can’t identify them, perhaps you should ask, rather than being obtuse. The claim that there is a desire for power and control does not mean that every single rule is furthering that goal.

As I mentioned above, there were a bunch of polls known to skew right that were recently released. They did this is ‘22 as well. Makes things seem tighter, which I think is thought to boost turnout some folks stay at home if they’re convinced you’re going to lose https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/10/harris-vs-trump-analyst-tells-panicky-dems-gop-is-creating-fake-polls-desperate-unhinged-trumpian.html ‘In a tweet thread, Rosenberg explained: “Of last 15 general election polls released in PA, 12 have right/GOP affiliations. Their campaign to game the polling averages and make it appear like Trump is winning — when he isn’t — escalated in last few days.” ‘ edit: more detail about the shenanigans https://thinkbigpicture.substack.com/p/2024-trump-red-wave-polls “The methodology was very suspicious. Among the 124 RVs surveyed in Philadelphia, TIPP in its wisdom determined that only 12 (yes, 12) of them were “likely voters.” It basically nearly zeroed out Philadelphia.”

These are things you assume in order to develop the mathematical model. As long as these assumptions are reasonable, the model will work well. Models that try to incorporate fewer assumptions are more complicated. Attraction and repulsion, for example - if these have a small effect the model works. If the system is cold and the molecules don’t have much energy, these become important, so you expect the equations won’t give you the correct behavior. Similarly for high pressure, where the atoms spend a lot of time close to each other, so the short-range interactions become important.

What’s the experimental path to confirming this?

Saw an interesting comment on Bluesky - there are undoubtedly women respondents in every poll who will vote for Kamala but can’t say that to a pollster in front of their Trumpy husband.

Why is opposing a fascist astonishing to you? Why do we have to tolerate such views?

You apparently didn’t read my post carefully enough to notice I wrote L1

Betting gives you arbitragers when the odds shift. They are interested in making money, so the bets don’t have to represent support of a candidate There have apparently been a lot of right-wing-biased polls reported lately, which shifts the average toward Trump. Same thing happened two years ago.

To specifically point out an incorrect statement. I couldn’t resist the irony. You should limit yourself to what I actually said instead of trying to read more into it. I only objected to your use of incorrect terminology. Objecting to one point should not be taken to be an objection to any other points. As I said, I'm not all that familiar with his work, other than his tendency to be overly pedantic. Also not a fan of this form of stalking.

Probably because teaching Newton’s laws of motion is difficult enough, and there’s no immediate need to solve problems in a non-inertial frame No, it’s a force, but it’s a pseudoforce, which you need to introduce in order to use F=ma in an accelerating frame. Newton’s first law tells you the laws of motion don’t apply, but by pretending you are moving in uniform motion you can use them. Except that, from your quote, he doesn’t say they cancel, he says they balance. L1 is an orbit, so must be a force there. A centripetal force, if analyzing in an inertial frame. But you want the period to be the same as the earth’s. The earth’s gravity cancels out the excess gravity of the sun, so the net force (centripetal force) is correct for that orbit. That’s the balance you achieve. There’s more than one way to explain this, and more than one way to understand it. Your tone suggests that not doing it your preferred way is wrong, and that’s simply not the case. They could be, but everyone is from time to time. But Frasier Cain, Cox, NdGT, et al, are out there, engaging with the public, and not hiding behind pseudonyms to take potshots You want to discuss science? Great! You can do it without bashing people.

Why is it supposed to? Does collecting trash, or washing dishes, or emptying bedpans provide paths to living a meaningful life?