The day before the first day of work from home I got fired from my engineering job at an oil company. Soon after I smoked weed occasionally for the first time in years after having received random drug tests. Unemployment extensions were nice too!
I bought a big laser cutter and started making art. Spent more time helping out at the local artist collective sprucing things up.
Eventually I got hooked up with a cool LED art installation company helping them install their projects as a freelancer. Now I'm full time with them!
It's lower pay than the oil company but it is so much more rewarding, interesting, cooler people, better work/life balance. Overall the pandemic was fun times for me personally.
Thank you for that information. The article is about a German / Austrian woman so I was summarizing the pros and cons of an inheritance tax which might apply to any country since I don't know the specifics of their law or why they changed it it.
For regular people, an inheritance tax is not great. For the ultra-wealthy it should be mandatory.
Arguments against an inheritance tax:
Double taxation: Critics argue that inheritance taxes are a form of double taxation, since the assets being inherited have already been taxed once during the decedent's lifetime.
Hurts small businesses: Family-owned businesses can face hardship if they must be sold off to pay inheritance taxes.
Discourages investment: Inheritance taxes can disincentivize people from saving and investing, as they know a portion of their wealth will go to the government.
Arguments for an inheritance tax:
Reduces wealth inequality: Inheritance taxes help to redistribute wealth from the very wealthy to the rest of society, reducing income inequality.
Prevents concentration of power: By limiting the ability of wealth to be passed on unchecked, inheritance taxes can help to prevent excessive concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a few families.
Source of government revenue: Inheritance taxes can be a significant source of revenue for governments, which can be used to fund social programs and public goods.
Stupid question: What exactly are the dangers being implied here? I have accounts with all of these services although I don't use all of them. I know that they are using and selling my personal information, is there more? I have ways of doing things in private when I need and I'm aware that using these services has no expectations of absolute privacy.
The only brand that did not show any markers of PFAS was Ziploc. Public health advocates say the best way consumers can protect themselves is to use glass containers instead of plastic.
That's surprising that the black box overwrites itself after 2 hours of recording. This article linked to an article I missed about how the plane that had the door/panel fall off had the cockpit audio overwritten because it wasn't collected in time.
Thank you for creating and maintaining this space for us, I'm grateful for you and all of the other people working to keep things running and improving on lemmy. It is becoming harder and harder to find spaces for discussions that aren't corporate owned.
"We found that ICE has used solitary confinement more than 14,000 times over the last five years alone. Detained immigrants spent an average of 27 days in solitary confinement, well beyond the 15 days that the U.N. considers torture. At least 42 people were held in solitary confinement by ICE for more than a year."
How disgusting, especially after seeing the Channel 5 video where he gets detained and describes how the solitary rooms are kept as cold as possible with no beds, blankets, or showers and the bright lights were kept on 24/7 to add to the torture. I was shocked to learn that there are no constitutional rights in ICE jurisdiction.
I think that this article is saying that they don't dispute the other claims made in the NYT article, only the one which they opened with, the lady in the black dress. I'm not claiming the NYT article is correct or not, just pointing out what I think the author's intent was.
Probably a bit of both? It says that women are having their first child at the age of 33.6, the oldest in the OECD. The older you have a child the more difficulty you will have so they also put money into fertility clinics. This means low fertility rates.
It's not necessarily a health issue on a mass scale but an economic issue driving people to delay having children until they feel they can handle the responsibility. This causes low birth rates below 1.
Humans aren't the only species on Earth. Mass extinction is bad for everyone living on this planet, mostly the other animals who suffer our destruction. I wish we could just live in equilibrium without killing off every species that isn't worth farming.
I think 'mid' means middle or mid-grade weed, which means a similar thing as 'mediocre' like the chart says.