Which is why consumer product safety in the US is very high.
Also did you even read the article? They argue the brake failed because of the design of the bike.
"The suit goes on to argue that the quick release came loose as Steinsapir’s friend was applying the front brake, which allegedly caused the wheel to wobble and ultimately caused the crash. The plaintiffs also say that the surviving girl—who we’re not naming because she’s a minor—attempted to turn off the bike, but that the electrical power failed to shut down."
Actually consumer saftey in e-bikes seems to be higher in China than in the US. Radpower bikes go up to 32km/h, while ebikes in china are legally limited to 25km/h. There's further restrictions on the weight and battery life, along with some other stuff I can't read because I don't speak Chinese. https://www.sjgrand.cn/how-legally-drive-ebike-china/
If there is one thing that the Founding Fathers got wrong, it is this: Supreme Court appointments should not be lifetime. Immune to politics, sure - Once they're in, they cannot be removed for term, maybe, but I believe that they should be fixed-term, not forever
What I would propose is thus: Each president should be allowed one appointment, 40 year fixed terms. Same confirmation rules, but rather than the vagaries of when justices step down or die, we have a floating pool of 7-10 justices at any time with new ones being added at a fixed rate.
It's not so bad, but tbh I would trust running some random executable more on Mac more than I would Windows, so some people might be conditioned by how safe Macs generally are.
True, but which is more likely to get your click: a headline you're indifferent to, or a headline that fills you with righteous indignation? I think that if there's one thing that the development of social media has taught us about human nature, it's that any emotion is better than boredom, from an engagement standpoint.
Did you not read the tweet or are you just trying to misrepresent her argument? She is asking why different sets of trading rules are apply to retail and institutional investors. If retail can sell, but can't buy, who are they selling to?
"We now need to know more about
@RobinhoodApp’s decision to block retail investors from purchasing stock while hedge funds are freely able to trade the stock as they see fit."
Does she or doesn't she say that the retail services allowing sales but freezing purchases are especially worth of investigation, compared to the general category of retail services freezing stock purchases?
Of course, in reality, the only services freezing stock purchases are those allowing sales but freezing purchases. Because freezing sales in addtion to purchases would be much more problematic, not less.
"Before money we had to barter, which led to the double coincidence of wants problem. When everyone accepts the same money you can buy something from someone even if they don’t like the stuff you own."
Stopped reading right here. Anthropologists have widely discredited any ideas that "before money we had barter", but it's just shyly asserted as absolute fact.
If you're going to argue something isn't money, you should first have a correct idea of what is money.
When I was researching this subject, what I found out is that the path was:
1. Gift based economy. Where people aren't really giving gifts... this still exists in some parts of the world, basically if you accept the "gift", you are now in debt, and is expected to do something in return, not necessarily immediately. In small villages it makes sense, for example the hunter "gifts" everyone with the meat he hunted, increasing his social standing, so when he needs medical attention, the medic will take care of him, because he is socially in debt to the hunter. In a modern economy this instead can be disastrous, for example I have a cousin that visited France, and was horrified when african immigrants kept following him and his wife, hugging him forcefully, and trying to put random crap (it was some beads to wear around the wrist) on his hands and saying it is a gift, meanwhile when a nearby tourist did take the object, they demanded a 50 euro "gift" back.
2. When society is too big to be "social standing based", currency shows up rather quickly, when you can't remember everyone or use everyone's fame as currency, you need something easier to track, can be objects (rocks, salt, gold, whatever) or a ledger (numbers on a piece of clay, bank account, bitcoin, whatever), or both.
3. Barter shows up AFTER currency, because people use the currency to know the value of what they are bartering, for example a guy wants to buy a house, and doesn't have 3 tons of salt required, so he says he will offer you this gold bar worth 1 ton of salt, his horses worth the other ton of salt, and 5 years of his work worth the last ton of salt.
Here is a reasonable article on the subject, I remember vaguely it was one of my sources at the time, it is not the best source, but is the one that pointed me in the right direction.
In short, while bartering likely did exist in some forms, it was not the primary means of commerce. Within a tribe or group of people, a 'gift economy' was generally used. This makes sense, as an average pre-historic tribe had like 50 people, making a complicated economic system unnecessary.
When civilization started to form, primitive forms of money came along with it. There was never a time when you went to the market with a handful of wheat and some furs, and hoped to trade them for some salt and fruit. That idea was popularized by Adam Smith in the 1700s, who was an economist, not an anthropologist.
The book "Debt: The 5000 Years" laboriously debunks the idea that early cultures bartered, then realized they needed money. I don't have more details unfortunately because it's been a while since I read it (and it's quite dense). I remember being convinced of the logic though!
Since its inception facebook has not had completely full free speech. It doesn't allow targeted bullying, scamming, or any other way of causing material harm to another person. All this is doing is admitting genocide denial causes material harm to another person, which I'm sure you would agree with.
This usually isnt the best course though. The U.S. for example after invading iraq squashed any anti west/american speech. It lead to members going underground instead of having discussions in an open civilized way. This lead to a further radicalization of Muslims and an even deeper hate for Americans and lead to the eventual terror attacks across the world. Let these ideas get tackled and shunned in the public and be exposed to what they really are.
Also did you even read the article? They argue the brake failed because of the design of the bike.
"The suit goes on to argue that the quick release came loose as Steinsapir’s friend was applying the front brake, which allegedly caused the wheel to wobble and ultimately caused the crash. The plaintiffs also say that the surviving girl—who we’re not naming because she’s a minor—attempted to turn off the bike, but that the electrical power failed to shut down."