IF no one has thought of it, has it really been rejected?

with no reason

... If only there was a reason like everyone getting an extra 1000 dollars a month... Oh wait.

Most of them will accept slightly lower rents to keep the property occupied constantly.

They might, but Demand is high enough in California they're still raising rates. Demand doesn't change because of this. Supply doesn't change. But the amount of available cash that a rents has will have changed, which means the market will change accordingly.

If people aren’t living lay heck to paycheck, afraid of where the next meal comes from

You're not solving the problem of the UBI being eaten up by what they already have to pay for as everything just gets a bit more pricy.

You have this VERY strange idea of what a landlord is. A landlord's needs are already met, that's why he has multiple properties.

... and it's not a trivial difference. A Stimulus check is NOT UBI, it's limited in who gets it, and it's a one time payment, so it's quickly spent whether on needs or wants, and then it's gone. UBI is a ongoing payment meaning that the market will adjust to the new money everyone has every month. So you can't compare the two. well you can but you just look foolish... which you're doubling down on.

It's not pedantic to point out that one time payments and continual payments change everything in different ways, but absolutely change the market in different ways... If you think that you might need to go back to school and get a basic economics class.

Oops I misunderstood the direction. (I think it was if the employee deems they misbehaved. (I assumed "It" was the employee, not SpaceX. More obvious in hindsight I guess, my bad.)

That's kind of the point I was making. (She was the one who didn't get away with it)

And you burn bridges pretty quickly.

Listen, I get the modern mentality of "If women don't want to date you who cares if you scare them away." but having friends is more important to dating someone so maybe building a social network is better than just rushing to date every girl you meet. Besides if a guy has no female friends, probably

If the other person thinks it’s just a friendly hang and you abruptly context switch into a sexual/romantic thing,

Yeah the key is you don't treat it as a sexual/romantic thing at first, if you're both interested, there will be SOME clue or at least get to know her first., rather than trying to date her immediately. This isn't a speed run competition, you can take some time to get to know people.

There was 8 years where I "tried to be clear"... guess what, I ended up with 1 female friend because most women don't want someone who tries to date them to hang around with them. And that was long before this whole incel/friendzone shit was popular. If you meet a girl and immediately try to date her, that's the biggest of red flags.

But go do you, just don't be surprised that "Being direct" keeps biting you in the ass.

"No it'll be so people can go be artists, and be writers and be...."

There are legit people who believe that.

And it's not like this money appears magically the government will need to find ways to pay for this, we still haven't solved that problem but even if we did, we'll see that 1000 doesn't change everyone's situation. Stupid people will still be poor because they spend too much money. The rich will save their money, but the middle class and lower middle won't change much because ultimately, 1000 dollars will eventually be factored into the new price of everything.

more people spending money overall helps the economy

The idea behind this only works IF more people are spending. If Rent jumps that money goes to the landlord, who may (but probably won't) spend the extra money, and it doesn't benefit everyone.

I forget the term, but there's an idea that talks about how many people/businesses touch money. So if you create a dollar into an economy (you can't create money with out causing problems but let's pretend it's magic) if that money goes into a person's bank it's probably a bad thing. If that money goes through 10 people's hands, you're getting taxation on it in every place which is a good thing (for the government). Problem is landlords are usually well off (at least well enough to own more than one property). They might not be "mega rich" but they almost certainly will save that money, rather than spend it.

Besides which stimulus checks are a one time payment... not exactly the same as UBI.

If there was no external stimulus, they would have a slam dunk case. When every gas station jacks the price up 20 cents because the price of oil goes up, it's just the market.

Put 1000 dollars in everyone's pocket, every (smart) landlord will react and change their prices accordingly. That's not "Collusion", and the DoJ will never be able to make a case. That's just landlords paying attention to what happened in the world.

Or are you saying that Landlords are ILLEGALLY colluding with one another to ensure Rent remains high?

No... I'm saying that a Landlord can read a paper and know that people have an extra 1000 dollars, so they can raise their rent 330/660/ or real dickbags 1000 dollars since you now have extra money.

Ok dude... I'm going to go back and time and tell 15 year old me what to do. You can come and listen if you want.

"First off, let's not rush shit. You always rush shit, so you need to play it cool. Don't say date.. even if it's a date, don't say date. You asked two girls you liked as friends to go to see a movie you wanted, and one got mad you asked the other one first because she thought it was a date. So you gotta be cool.

"So basically say "want to go to the comic book store?" She likes comics she's going to say yes. Heck don't specify a specific time, so when she asks "When?" you know she's interested, work out a time. Even if she asks "like a date" say "what ever" with a smile, she'll think it's cute. Play it cool dude!

"Second do a little research, find some place to eat that's cool. If it goes cool at the comic store, suggest going to grab a bite. Don't choose anything too pricy, casual just two friends chilling out. If she thinks it's a date, it'll work, if not it's just a hang out. Great. Then play it by ear. She might suggest "What do you want to do?" She might just want to go home and even if she doesn't want to eat that's not the worst thing.

"Now dude, I've given you the plan. Let me tell you the other side. You're a fucking idiot, you're going to flub that, but don't freak out. If you say something stupid it's not the worst thing in the world. You're a nerd, but if she's the one for you, she'll like that about you. Just don't rush shit... You got this.

"Good luck Young Kinglink" ( Spoiler, never worked, didn't find my first girlfriend until I was 24... ehhh now married and happy so you get there eventually ). And good luck Chris, but take it easy my friend, and don't push the date aspect too hard unless she's given you signs, and I'm guessing she hasn't... yet.

Others are saying make it clear it's a date, but if you do that, it's binary. She wants to date you and says yes, or she doesn't (and that might hurt your friendship)... she probably doesn't know you well enough to date you yet otherwise you'd know for sure if this was a good idea.

Oh but to answer your question. For the right girl? A comic store date would be perfect, especially if you know she likes comics.

I mean.... isn't that also a legal thing?

If you know insider information that's not public (A company misbehaved being one of them) you are not supposed to trade stock to financially gain from it.

Now that's what you're supposed to do... Politicians have proven that's rules just for peasants, and most stock traders heavily benefit from this type of information, and unless your Martha Stewart for some reason, you get away with it... But my point is legally, if you know they misbehaved, that's immediately insider information?

Edit: I misunderstood the headling/rule. Sorry. Quite a shit thing that granted stock can be revoked, especially after you pay taxes. I wonder how legal it is, because if they can revoke it, is it actually yours and thus do you have to pay taxes on it?

I love Chris Stuckmann, and I love his reviews, and I respect his opinion "the movie theater is important."...

But I also know I don't want to go to a "Movie theater" It's not really an "Event" for us. if the choice is go to the movie theater or watch an episode or two of 8 our of 10 cats does countdown... We'd actually choose the latter.

I respect the movie theater, but at the same time I also hate the movie theater and that moving going experience.

I did not . But apparently they like porn more than they hate Brave.

Not surprising.

You know, you can just open the Brave Brower, click a button get a new private window with tor, which gives you a random IP, which bypasses many targeted IP/location restrictions. This is free compared to VPNs, which will cost money to get around these restrictions.

Just say if you need to nut Texas, Brave has got your back.

As far as I read/understand, nope. But if it does limit the assistance to 28 miles an hour, that might be required if the bike goes above that speed. (Note: that's only the point where the power would stop assisting, not the fastest speed the bike can do.)

Technically the bill adds age restriction for Class 2 and class 3 not 1, but honestly, I kind of understand what they're doing. Class 2 is powered with out pedaling, How that's not a "Motorbike" is a weird determination. But I do question class 1 vs class 3 where 20 miles an hour is perfectly safe, and 28 is somehow dangerous is a weird line in the sand. And also the fact that anything over 28 ... I mean doesn't exist? I guess you can make unregulated bikes now!

Umm that's not exactly what they're saying.

It would update a 27-year-old law to create three new classes of electric bikes based on the type of motor and how fast they can go.

Hell the ACTUAL statute is just defining what a e-bike is. You can see it here: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024r1/Measures/Overview/HB4103

It does say class 1 can be operated by anyone, but 2 and 3 can be limited to 16 and older. Yes that's more restrictive then the past, but really it's "Defining the e-bikes" because they were poorly defined based on an almost hundred year old law.

That being said it does limit the top speed of an e-bike to 28 miles an hour, I assume above that it's now a motocycle, and honestly, that might be a good thing, because at that speed they no will come out of no where (hell at 20-30 miles an hour they still will)

This is hardly as bad as the title.

"Well we clearly need to make it even more illegal then" -The Government

(Although technically was 16 year olds not allowed to ride e-bikes? If so then this is more permissive, because it says 16 year olds can ride class 1 bikes)