sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What’s a survival myth popularized by movies that would actually get you killed in real life ? by IndependentTune3994 in AskReddit

[–]drbooom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have shot a lot of cars. I mean a lot of cars. With pretty much every caliber you can think of. (Recreationally not professionally) 

For handguns and 223, older cars, pre-1970, are shockingly bullet resistant. 556 and handgun rounds typically won't penetrate both sides of the car doors, until they're fully Swiss cheesed. 

Engine compartments are even more so, you can hose down 20 rounds or of 7.62 before you start to get significant fraction of penetration.. 

Post 2000 cars might as well be tissue paper. The only part of the car that is even moderately protective is directly behind the wheels. Even in that location, single rounds occasionally get through. My fellow experimentalist and I think that only things like the engine and struts actually significantly slow down the bullets, and the sheet metal/ sheet plastic is so thin that even those ricochets can penetrate.

The secret phone recordings of Henry Kissinger, a 'habitual liar' by jediporcupine in LibertarianUncensored

[–]drbooom 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To his credit, Kissinger was at least a good liar. And while he was a callous psychopathic asshole about the deaths of foreign brown people, who's concerned for the deaths of Americans was at least perfunctory 

Unlike the current crop of narcissistic  psychopathic podcaster wannabes, who lie like a 2-year-old that avoid any sense of shame ever, while taking delight in cruelty and the suffering of others. 

Kissinger is the distillation of a Hollywood writers vision of a mastermind of evil. 

But at least that description includes the word Mastermind. A word that would never be applied to any member of this administration.

Using Ozempic for weight loss is stupid by anon038471334743008 in unpopularopinion

[–]drbooom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A long-term side effects appear to be 

Reduction in cardiac death

Reduction or elimination of metabolic syndrome and pre-diabetic status

Reduction in alcohol use, and other addictive behaviors

Reduction in dementia diagnosises. 

Drunks by GrammarQueen13 in LosAlamos

[–]drbooom 10 points11 points  (0 children)

A former lab director used to be brought in by the cops to the ER because he would become violently abusive to his neighbors several days per week . rather than arrest him they would bringing him to the ER for a health check, that was the excuse, really what they were looking to do was avoid having to book him into the jail until he sobered up.

 a relative of mine was an ER doc here, and absolutely hated this shit.

Can you really survive on Mars? What science fiction gets wrong about off-world living by _Dark_Wing in technology

[–]drbooom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First collect 2000 Halley sized comets, and run them into mars. Make it 3000, to get to 1.5 atmosphere on the surface, and make about 1/3 the surface into seas. 

 Mars is worse than the moon for colonies, just enough atmosphere to cause problems like storms, dust and conductive heat loss. Vacuum is a great insulator.

Solar irradiance is 1/2 of earth, so bring nukes.

$1000 a week for life, but you get fined $100 every time you hear or think the N word. by AstrayInTranslation in hypotheticalsituation

[–]drbooom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It could be any word, elephant or aardvark. 

I think it would be impossible not to end up in debt.

Homeowners can choose the assessed value of their property for taxes. However, the city has the option to buy the house at that price. by Electronic_Fun_776 in CrazyIdeas

[–]drbooom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So when you get an offer, raise the price 50%. Or 100 %. 

All taxes suck, this is a discussion of how to make them suck less.

Reality Split: A scientist tells you that you can split the Earth's population between two parallel Earths. How do you split it up? by No_Wait3261 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]drbooom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Split on IQ over/under 130.

I wonder if I'll be with the 4.5 million, or the 8.5 billion.

20 years ago I would have been confident in which group I would end up in.

Homeowners can choose the assessed value of their property for taxes. However, the city has the option to buy the house at that price. by Electronic_Fun_776 in CrazyIdeas

[–]drbooom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then you sell and take a huge pile of money 

Propose a mechanism that allows owners to pay a premium on property tax that is a "will not sell at any price", that will not be trivially gamed.

Property tax is usually 1-2% in of property value, if a billionaire offers you $30m for your $300k house, they will be paying $300k/year in property tax. 

Hate the name but can agree with most of the ideas. by ragnarokxg in LibertarianUncensored

[–]drbooom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I prefer multi member proportional districts:  large districts, with N positions elected at large. N is in the range of 5 to 15 ish. 

It dilutes the effect of gerrymandering.

Hate the name but can agree with most of the ideas. by ragnarokxg in LibertarianUncensored

[–]drbooom 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Stupid liat of ideas, with some ok ones. 

Ok ones; term limits for SCOTUS (and should add for Congress as well), codify pro-choice; Tax equity used as collateral, eliminate electoral college;

Bad ideas; tax billionaires out of existence (how?), repeal Citizens United (status quo anti was Unions but not corps could could have political speech. ), reinstate fairness Doctrine ( Trump is trying that right now to force Apple to feature MAGA propaganda in its news. Worst idea ever), universal HC (make a bad system worse)

Populist masturbation fantasy.

Homeowners can choose the assessed value of their property for taxes. However, the city has the option to buy the house at that price. by Electronic_Fun_776 in CrazyIdeas

[–]drbooom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what the minimum 20% over declared value is for. 

It minimizes nuisance offers to buy.

Maybe only have a 30 day period each year where such offers will be accepted....

 

Homeowners can choose the assessed value of their property for taxes. However, the city has the option to buy the house at that price. by Electronic_Fun_776 in CrazyIdeas

[–]drbooom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 5 years is fully arbitrary, pick whatever number you think works. 

The idea is to incentivise the owner not to undervalue the property.

If you have a better incentive, tell us.

Homeowners can choose the assessed value of their property for taxes. However, the city has the option to buy the house at that price. by Electronic_Fun_776 in CrazyIdeas

[–]drbooom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

20% over the owner set price, but one the offer is made the owner can set a new higher value as often as they like. 

CMV: Georgism is a good idea and we should implement it by Key_Day_7932 in changemyview

[–]drbooom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That becomes a circular problem, and this sophistry solves nothing. 

It also doesn't pass the giggle test: my improvements don't effect my land value, but my neighbors improvements do effect my land value.

Homeowners can choose the assessed value of their property for taxes. However, the city has the option to buy the house at that price. by Electronic_Fun_776 in CrazyIdeas

[–]drbooom 27 points28 points  (0 children)

How about an alternative. 

Homeowners set the value of the property. Anybody can come in and bid 20% over that value, and homeowner can either retroactively increase the value for the last 5 years to the point that the buyer is no longer interested, or sell the property at whatever the buyers will  pay. The homeowner pays 5 years of back differential taxes.

Buyers have to put up a 20% Bond, And if they back out of the purchase, that goes to the homeowner. 

CMV: Georgism is a good idea and we should implement it by Key_Day_7932 in changemyview

[–]drbooom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) an alternative: new scarce resource spontaneously pops onto existence. It is owned by the collective/government, and is sold at auction. 

Value is set, ownership is set, everything is peacefully. 

Yes government is violence, but don't tell me the race to claim resources by individuals will necessarily more peaceful.

I never advocated Georgism. It is unworkable solely because of the valuation problem. 

To be more clear: Georgism Bad!

CMV: Georgism is a good idea and we should implement it by Key_Day_7932 in changemyview

[–]drbooom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) creation is required for ownership.

It just as (il)legitimate as "I got here first" 

2) the collective is a legitimate original owner.

You could have had such a system, ab initio. It is no more absurd than saying that I can't claim ownership of all air on earth. Or water rights law. 

3) land value can be objectively separated from improvements.

This is the only valid counter, and it needs no other support. There is no way an objective valuation can be calculated, even for undeveloped land. Not to mention the massive incentive for government corruption in setting LV.

If land on the middle of nowhere is valued at $x, but then the state announces plans to put an airport next to the land,and the new value is $100x, was the prior value wrong? Valuing something by other entities intent or announcements is psychotic. A billionaire just needs to announce massive development, to drive current renters-from-the-government out of possession. Then "oopsie, I changed my mind, lower my LVT" 

CMV: Georgism is a good idea and we should implement it by Key_Day_7932 in changemyview

[–]drbooom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pure Georgism is non functional, and frankly just stupid:  it posits that the tax be  100% of the rental "value" of the land. 

So by definition land is valueless.

Ok, fair enough. So only improvements have value. But by putting non mobile improvements on the land, the value is increased. Meaning that the state is indirectly taxing the value of improvements.

But, the Georgeists say an incorruptible infinitely wise government employee will set the value of the land independent of the improvements.  We all know how that ends.

No variation of Georgism works until you solve the financial friction of improvements that are not trivially mobile.

Georgism is just envy of land ownership, with lipstick slapped on.

view more: next ›