Do you also include civilians who are killed by someone else if we don't take action? While "we" can do better about killing civilians, whoever "we" is, there is a "someone else" who will kill civilians as well - maybe a different group of civilians, but they will themselves do some killing.
Try which? I've seen many ideas, we cannot try them all. Some of the ideas have been tried as well, but the proposers don't have enough history to know that or the results. Most of them will take decades to implement. This isn't an easy problem.
That is one hypothesis. While it sounds reasonable, we don't actually know if it would work. We also have no clue how to solve the underlying conflicts. (Other than simplistic things like turning the entire middle east to glass - killing many innocent people in the process).
$1 million isn't nearly as much or as impressive as it used to be. I'm not saying it isn't impressive, but inflation has eroded the value (and increased wages). Often those who have $1 million have it locked away in retirement accounts that they cannot touch so they are on paper rich, but in practice don't have as much today (the savings needed to get that much in assets mean they are living on much less than their peers - thus they appear much less wealthy than their peers who are not saving)
This is normal for all generations. Back in the 1990s the then popular 'the millionair nextdoor' couldn't find any rich people living in rich areas. They had to go to the poor run down neighborhoods to find people who had real wealth. (their neighbors were mostly the really poor just barly getting buy, but mixed in where some of the true rich)
I'm not dismissing it. However I am dismissing the idea that this has anything to do with poverty. That later is what most people commenting seem to be assuming and that is not supported by the data we have.
What do you mean by own? Own as in 100% paid for - not too many. Own as in their name is on the deed, but most of the value belongs to the bank - more than half of the US.
The important point here is you cannot project this statistic on the poor! Maybe poor have problems, but there is no way 40% of the US is that poor. The majority of that 44% has a spending problem. If you want to make a statement about the poor you need to study the poor and that means you won't study everyone and talk about 40+%.
44%. That is far too many to be believable or explainable as a poverty problem. Well before you that many people there are plenty of people who on a similar income can find $1000. Getting a credit card with more than $1000 limit is easy if you have income - unless you already have so many maxed out, or otherwise have not made payments. Maybe not for everyone, but they are claiming 40% of Americans here which means many of them have a good enough jobs and means to pay off a $1000 loan - so if they can't get that it means they are way over extended.
The people I know making $500k/year have debt payments so high they can't come up with $1000, and if they could get more debt they would have done so already.
It is a spending problem. I know people who make $500k/year who live paycheck to paycheck. I know other people who make $35k/year who have money left at the end of the month (not $1000).
Now i will grant it is a lot easier to live on 500k than 35k, and a lot easier to save. However living paycheck to paycheck doesn't tell us anything.
I don't think this was particularly hard. If WWIII broke out I'd expect these would be an early target of anyone trying to get air superiority, and so a lot would be shot down. These are not cheap planes to run - not only do you have to pay for crew and fuel, but also a lot of people to look at the data they generate. You don't expect minor countries to even have one - even Russia only has 10. As such I doubt they normally are even in a situation where there is a possibility to shooting them down.
It is enforceable. Not in all cases, probably not even in the majority, but it only needs a few examples to be hit with large fines and everyone doing legal things will take notice. Often you can find enough evidence to get someone to confess to using AI and that is aall the courts need.
Scammers of course will not put this in, but they are already breaking the law so this might be - like tax evasion - be a way to get scammers who you can't get for something else.
You can do that, but if you are in California you have just broken the law. If California enforces the law you will discover projects all make a big deal about this since users can be arrested for violation of the law if they don't handle it correctly. Most likely it is just turned on by default for all versions, but there is also the possibility that they have large warning about turning it off. Note that if you go with warning nobody with your project should travel to California as then you are liable for helping someone violate the law.
It is really hard to do a good studies on diet. You end up with one of two conclusions: "Despite our best efforts we were unable to get our test subjects to follow the required diet"; or "These results may not generalize to the general population who isn't confined to [a prison cell/hospital bed]".
We can study how one meal effects your body, but that isn't really helpful - Does it matter if some diet causes cholesterol to go up/down for a bit and then it returns? And cholesterol is one of those markers where we have enough studies to conclude that high is bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean that high for a bit and returning to low is also bad. Some things like smoking are such large effects that we can look at general population and make conclusions, but often the effect isn't that large and so it is believed that some diet is good/bad, but we cannot prove it from data we can collect.
The above is about actual science. Most mainstream diet books at best cherry pick some fact and then take it to an extreme to create some eating plan ignoring all evidence of other facts that might limit how far you can take this one. (that is assuming they start with a fact - just making up facts is common as well) The news media doesn't care to figure out what is real science and what is made up facts.
The right solution to this is relax building rules everywhere. Zoning should be harmful effects on neighbors only. Shade is not harmful (if you want a garden buy more land so it can't be shaded by a sky scrapper) . Go a head and build a hog barn downtown if you want to - so long as you control the smell it is legal (there are other pollutants a hog farm can cause to also control). Building should generally be by right (I think it mostly is in Georgia already if you fit in the zoning rules, but those rules are too strict everywhere in the US)
A building is not historical just because it is old. That means kids should have to learn in school about the thing that happened there, and the building should regularly have tours for interested people.
Where I live eaectric is 100% wind. with that and solar many places have a significat renewable Part. Even in the worst case fossil fuels are 2 or 3 times more efficent than a car engine.
No, we just have a majority of English speakers so you assume all stupid English speakers are American unless proven otherwise. The anti-vaccination conspiracies comes from the UK from what I can tell.
That isn't clear, but probably not. Though if you are a dev there are some open source charities that exist to defend against things like this, so I'd recommend you go look for one.
Do you also include civilians who are killed by someone else if we don't take action? While "we" can do better about killing civilians, whoever "we" is, there is a "someone else" who will kill civilians as well - maybe a different group of civilians, but they will themselves do some killing.