The difference is still there for many drivers when at a complete standstill.

I’ve been in the same situation. Amazing how different pedestrian right of way can be, even in cities less than 100 miles apart. But countries are another story. Sweden vs Vietnam is an interesting transition, although Vietnam is still relatively pedestrian friendly in the sense that they’ll try to avoid you and don’t get angry because you exist. In some parts of Mexico, it literally feels like the drivers want to run you over, even if you blatantly have the right of way.

Same. It’s a half “nice of you” and half “I’m going now and I’m making that clear” mostly so I don’t get run over.

So weird though. Two humans walking at the same intersection will usually both try to find a suitable way around one another. Of course there are exceptions, but generally, pretty even and respectful encounter.

Throw one of those humans behind the wheel of a car and a TON of them behave completely different. As if the people walking don’t deserve the space in the world. Or that they don’t have the right to be “in the way.”

I try very hard to be a courteous driver and pedestrian, but just can’t believe how many greedy, selfish drivers there are. Eye opening if you walk around a lot.

Shockingly, it is accurate as long as you consider age 3 and under a toddler. I also don’t think they’re literally tracking it by day but rather just more than 52/year. No matter the pedantic concerns, the deaths from guns in the US is sickening.

The evidence for this article was even investigated by Snopes and found to be true. They framed it as “more toddlers kill in the US than foreign terrorists.” This was all from 2015/2016. And it’s only gotten worse since then. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

Gun deaths in the US are astronomical. In 2021, 184 deaths by guns from children 5 and under. More than 3 per week. From kids under 5 alone. This is a good read about gun violence in US children overall: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/

Damn near 50,000 US gun deaths overall in 2021. That is more than 130 people PER DAY. Just utterly depressing. And leaders still fail to bring about any significant change. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

So far, yes. They’re allowing things to continue as they did before this case was brought.

But much more importantly, they’ve agreed to rule on the merits of the case. While this order might make you think they’re in favor of the administration, they could easily flip against when the issue the actual ruling. Then it’s a more permanent action.

I see this as a very important issue of our time. Social media platforms have speed up the exchange of opinions and information tremendously. But they’re terrible at preventing the spread of misinformation. That’s shouldn’t always result in government intervention, but sometimes it should. There are many restrictions on the first amendment that are justified.

During a global emergency about a serious health hazard, it seems entirely justified to place more restrictions on first amendment rights and allow government intervention when the private companies fail to act.

deleted by creator

Incredible news. Battery advancements can help a wave of innovation take off. This is a giant step in the right direction coming from one of the world’s premier manufacturers.

I can’t wait to see what energy storage advances we make in the coming decades. It’s going to continue to grow as one of the world’s largest needs in our effort to get away from fossil fuels.

Absolutely. Money and corruption often go hand in hand, regardless of the ruling system.

The US has previously been a great example of how socialist policies can be implemented as part of a capitalist system. World-leading programs like public education, retirement security, and healthcare in old age; even environmental protection and workers’ rights fit in here. This was when politicians actually had turnover and things like Citizens United and Super PACs weren’t a thing.

But the US is now a great example of how infection can spread and destroy even the best laid systems, leaving us with an oligarchy of nearly unfettered capitalism with constant degradation of the socialist policies. Where the money from the wealthy flows directly into our governance. And it’s utterly toxic.

It’s time to shift the power back to the masses. It’s already been done under this structure. It just needs a 21st century kick in the ass to get it up to (1) stop reversing all the incredible progress made in the 20th century and (2) get a handle 21st century issues like global tax evasion, housing markets upended by investment schemes, wealth distributed entirely through shareholder value, etc. These problems are all solvable under the current system, it just takes lawmakers who give a flying fuck.

And that’s why a progressive tax system makes sense, unless you want wealth to become concentrated.

The US’s tax rate was once truly progressive, with top marginal rates well over 70%, even reaching over 90%. And guess what happened during that time. The middle class exploded and so did the economy overall.

Now the wealthiest pay a LOWER effective rate than most taxpayers. This is a regressive system, favoring the rich and creating more inequality. Allowing for increasing concentration of wealth and a devastation of the middle class.

Money making money does not have to result in the insane concentrations of wealth we see today. People can still get rich and be rich. But effective tax policy and regulations can be used to create a society that’s better for most.

It’s fucking disgusting. Little more than a manifestation of greed mixed with sociopathic and narcissistic behavior.

The worst part is that there are people who think these deserve that money. This is all on the backs of actual workers. And from a society that they aren’t paying their fair share of.

Should these three individuals be wealthy? Sure. Should they have ever been allowed to accumulate anywhere near this much personal wealth on the backs of literally millions of other people? Fuck no.

This money should have been forcefully spread around to those workers over the course of decades. And a good chunk back to the society that made it all possible.

Instead, these sycophants hoarded more than they could ever need or even want, while keeping wages far too low and paying very little (effective rate) in taxes.

Absolutely. It’s political suicide for many of them. So they don’t rock the boat.

It’s a great example of where term limits could help. Great leaders will sometimes take actions that won’t get them re-elected. Immigration reform is one of those bullets someone needs to catch. But no one is willing to.

Even on the right where you might think anti-immigration stance is an easy winner, the corporate interests (donors) clash with the public opinion (voters). Immigrants are workers, a critical cog in the wheel of big business. But the right’s base LOVES a good “keep ‘em out” campaign. So what does the politician do? Say/do one thing (BIG WALLS) and turn a blind eye to another (massive amounts of undocumented workers employed by domestic firms). This side would usually go for the “it’s good for business” line (which holds a lot of truth). But they’ve been told it’s the immigrants’ faults they aren’t getting their fair share of the financial pie. So this false narrative to shed blame for wealth inequality causes a conflict in immigration policy with donor interest. Political suicide to act on it. Lose your voters or your donors.

The left is tricky too, believe it or not. Many left-leaning Americans have negative views about immigration and see border security as a huge issue. Even those that want increased ways to legal status also say they want more border security. The humanitarian view actually doesn’t have that much sway in voter opinion. And this side also isn’t likely to be convinced by the economic view (corporations will do better with more cheap labor) as that’s more aligned with right-leaning economy first views. This is where I think term limits would be useful because some left-leaning leaders could choose to handle true immigration reform in a way that appeases corporate donors but slightly disappoints voters. The kickback would be unlikely to last as long (not an entire party issue), but it would lose voters for that individual, almost definitely.

The executive branch has to deal with how to execute laws passed, even when they are in conflict with one another. So there is a lot of leeway provided to deal with those conflicts.

It’s hard to say exactly how necessary it is for the DHS to waive these 26 laws, but the argument is that in order to abide by the more pressing matter (the immigration laws and funding), they must ignore the other 26.

I am not as willing to concede that this is entirely out of the Biden administrations control. Instead of waiving all the 26 laws, why not use them to drag out the time and costs? They are mainly be about environmental studies, public feedback, and other measures that soak up funds and take a lot of time. If this administration was truly serious about not wanting to build the wall, they’re basically going against that by fast-tracking it.

I’m much more inclined to think there is a quid pro quo going on and them giving in on the wall - especially in this particular manner - is in exchange for something else. But that’s not something political leaders will be transparent about. We see checkers, but a chess game is happening (out of our vision).

The weirdest part to me is how “support the troops” is always a priority for most in the group opposing Ukrainian support. In fact, military support is usually so critical that they can set aside many of their primary targets of small government and fiscal responsibility.

I get that this isn’t the “our” troops they usually chant about, but it easily could be, especially if Russia continues its aggressive action. It doesn’t seem that it’s that hard to understand that if you’re willing to give the US military nearly a trillion dollars, it isn’t a bad idea to give support to a country actively fighting against this threat.

I guess it really does just come down to people convinced that Russia is somehow not a threat to the US, even though the leaders of “our troops” feel differently.

https://news.usni.org/2021/08/18/russia-is-top-military-threat-to-u-s-homeland-air-force-general-says

I absolutely hate being sick and can spiral downward after it too. What helps me is to do my best to focus on the small wins.

Am I feeling better than I was at the worst? Great! Did I get out for at least some exercise? Great, do more tomorrow.

It’s also good you’re identifying the habits you want to avoid, like YouTube and social media overload. Now just try to replace your time on them with something else, almost anything else. Even just dedicating time to one movie or trying to read a few pages or a book can snowball the direction you want to go.

You’ve got this. You’re not hospitalized or worse from your recent illness. And it sounds like you’re on your way to recovering, even if it’s going slowly. One step at a time.

Very true. Even just writing (or rewriting) the regulations is full of ways to get whatever the executive branch wants.

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” George Carlin

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a lot more to separation of powers than this. You might be well aware of all this, but for those that aren’t, here’s a giant wall of text.

The executive branch’s powers are clearly defined and including acting as the head of the military, the head of foreign affairs, and the executor of the laws congress passes. It is quite restricted by congress in many ways. Of course, the executive branch has emergency powers and limited ways around the laws congress enacts, but that’s not the default and it is very much intended to be restricted by congress.

The executive branch also has room to make interpretations (create regulations) and to prioritize certain laws when they come into conflict.

This is what they’re doing here. They have weighed the laws (from congress) they are tasked with enforcing, which includes (a) specific immigration restrictions and (b) a variety of other ones that could impact their ability to execute the immigration restrictions (the “26” laws waived, including water and environmental protections). The DHS (an executive branch agency) has determined that (b) these 26 place an undue burden that prevents them from executing (a) the immigration restrictions, and is therefore temporarily waiving (b).

You can read the actual order here: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-22176.pdf

Notice that it does not say it’s randomly waiving laws of its own accord without a law that it is executing. It is clearly referencing the statues (enacted by congress) that it is acting on. It is identifying that it is failing to execute some laws, but only so it can prioritize another one it has deemed more important for this specific action. It’s also become popular for the executive branch to use emergency decrees to act unilaterally, but these are supposed to be much more limited and a functioning judiciary/congress should hold the executive accountable when this happens.

What the executive branch is NOT doing here is very important too. It is NOT deciding it doesn’t want to do what congress says. Congress could rewrite the immigration law or any of the other 26 laws to change the way the executive branch executes them, if it feels the executive is implementing them wrong. And the judicial branch could easily weigh in on this if someone affected brings the case to them.

Wise of you to seek out advice and plan this far ahead. I’ve moved many times and have learned a thing or two.

First, savings. Don’t minimize them. It’s always crucial to live within your means and have cash set aside. Everything costs more than you think. The move, the new place, the getting settled into a new place. Jobs may not work out. Bottom line, do whatever you can to have some savings and quickly replenish it if you have to dig in.

Second, housing and transportation. Usually the two biggest out of pocket costs. Moving to a new area means you don’t know exactly where you want to live or what commutes are tolerable and where is worth living. So find something you’re comfortable with, but don’t overspend or get too committed. I love being close to work so I don’t have a long commute and will take a much smaller place to do so. I also don’t like living with roommates, so I often cut back transit costs and other expenses to live alone. If you don’t mind living with others, you can save a lot of money. But do not be house or car poor. See the first point.

Third, furnishings and getting settled in. It will take time. Don’t put too much pressure on yourself to create a picture-perfect home or have a big groups of friends right away. These things take time, especially to be done well. Cover your household basics (a good mattress is a worthwhile investment) then keep an eye out for second hand goods to get things started. Try to expand your horizons and join local groups or clubs to make some friends with similar interests. If you notice red flags, pay attention to them. Sometimes nasty people cling onto newcomers and can cause you unnecessary stress/problems. Seek out worthwhile relationships and nurture them instead.

Moving to a new places is one of the most exciting and frightening things you can do. But as long as you avoid getting your bank account too close to zero and take your time while putting in effort to live like a local, it can be absolutely amazing. I’ve lived in different countries, met people from vastly different cultures, lived on entirely different cuisine, and simply had some of the most mind and soul-expanding adventures in new areas. I’ve also missed my home, my family, friends I left behind, things I gave up, and more. But the reality is that all the material stuff will come and go, the time with family and friends should be cherished but not limit your life, and at the end of the day, you are the one in charge of your destiny. It’s up to you and you alone to figure out where to live and what to do to discover happiness. Just make sure to give yourself a fighting chance. Don’t go broke. And avoid abusing anything. Moderation and variety.

I write too much. Good luck!

Without knowing the costs, it sounds like you’re good candidates for the supplemental life or even an additional life policy. A year of salary can go quite quickly, as can the time and the costs of taking it off work. Term can be fine to start with, then later in life as it becomes a larger concern (especially with kids) you may consider whole life. But if you have substantial liquid savings, then you might just be fine with the 1-1.5x coverage for now. Once again, just all about your risk tolerance and savings.

Disability is very difficult to plan for and make a purely rational decision about. There are so many moving factors with the medical costs and length of the problem. For people who want total security, that $700 can be well worth it to sleep soundly. For others with more savings and a little room in their finances to cut back expenses, it might not be worthwhile. The more savings and the more you can rely on your partner for income, the less important it is.

But tackling it from a quantitative perspective may help. For $700, you’re getting 20% of your income. It’s a low-cost premium because the risk is usually low (unless you have reason to believe you’re likely to become disabled). You can also shop for separate plans to see how the premium lines up against competitors. It’s also important to understand the elimination period (how long you have to wait before you can claim benefits) and if it will pay out if you can perform ANY job vs your actual profession.

This is a pretty decent article on an approach to disability coverage: https://www.usbank.com/financialiq/plan-your-future/health-and-wellness/is-your-employer-long-term-disability-insurance-enough.html

Today I learned. Good point, thanks. Wonder why they chose to highlight it over the others. Must have a good conversion rate comparatively.

Found this list of assets owned by Berkshire Hathaway to be more than I knew, especially at 100% ownership: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Berkshire_Hathaway

Wayyyy too long of an answer. But I have some experience and might as well not let it go to waste. Definitely doesn’t hurt to talk with a financial advisor about it.

Always a good idea to check out market rates but your employer provided one likely has better premium rates as part of the group and with part of the payment possibly covered by your employer.

Deciding how much life insurance you should get is dependent on your personal situation, your desired coverage, and your risk tolerance.

But it’s likely that both of you having spousal coverage is a little toward overkill. I’d be more concerned about your disability coverage or the coverage of the highest-earning partner, especially if there’s a large disparity in earnings.

The main reason many people get life insurance is to make sure a non-working surviving spouse has the resources they need to get by with the same lifestyle and hopefully in the same house. So when you or your partner is not working, it’s usually the working partner that you want to have the most coverage (perhaps aligned with what would be needed to comfortably “retire” which really means just live the same lifestyle but only off investment income).

The second reason people get life insurance is to help with the short term consequences and expenses. Funerals are expensive. Debt can pile up with end of life care. Taking time off work can cause income drops. Daycare costs might need to be incurred. This is usually where the spousal coverage comes into play. Typically much lower coverage to give the working, surviving spouse a temporary boost due to death-related expensive, but not retire. Child policies are similar.

The more savings or investments you have, the lower your true need for this insurance is. If you can already comfortably retire, then it’s not a huge deal if either one passes (financially). And you have the cash to pay for short term death-related expenses.

Disability is a bigger deal to many people with substantial savings. It can mean a serious increase in expenses (to handle the disability) with a simultaneous decrease in earnings.

But some people also treat life insurance as an investment or a way to hedge specific risks. If you don’t want to work again if your spouse/partner passes, you can get increased coverage. Or if you simply like the security of getting a lump sum if one of your passes early, the premium cost might be worth it. Those are a personal decision and risk/reward calculation only you can make.

On the open market, you’ll find term and whole life. Term insurance is much lower cost because it only lasts a certain period (term). Whole life can be paid as a continuous premium until you file a claim (someone passes). People who are serious about life insurance get whole life policies and treat them as a wealth building investment. Many have cash values, where part of your premium goes into a savings-like account that builds at a certain interest rate. If you’re thinking of this, talk with a qualified advisor. And get at least 2 quotes from highly-rated and stable insurance companies.