Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@QasimRashid It's an interesting shibboleth; consider these two facts:

1.) "Asians are 6% of the population & 26% of Harvard admissions"
2.) "Practically speaking, the school (Harvard) effectively mandated that Asian-American applicants score 140 points higher than white students" (https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-america-fell-out-of-love-with-affirmative-action)

Which of those facts pisses you off more?

I think in some way it has to do with how you think of individuals vs. groups.

----

Regarding the decision: schools are allowed to consider individual circumstances, but I don't know how practical it is to use that to address this problem.

@freemo A fun day at the range?

@Felipe_B @cpoliticditto@mas.to No, it's actually legal to get married at younger than 16 in Michigan – you need permission from a judge, though. I have no idea how hard that is to get in practice or how often it happens. Similar is true in several other states, like California, Mississippi, and Washington. (So much for OP's narrative, I guess?)

@cpoliticditto@mas.to I don't know; what about states like CA and WA? Is it the Republicans running those states that are stopping them from reforming their laws?

@MarkRuffalo ctrl-f "crow" – no results! Be aware reading this article that it is telling you essentially nothing about the battle or the context in which it was fought. What a lazy article.

I mean, yeah, Custer was a genocidal maniac, sure; that point remains.

@publicdomainrev I didn't see a single flower-covered car today; how has this awesome tradition not survived?

@ivalaine @bhaggart The Wikipedia article you want to verify should have sources listed in the article that you can use to verify it. If not, delete the page.

@georgramer @edwiebe @alexwild ah ok – here I'd expect prices to reflect the costs, which are mostly energy: which costs more, transport from Spain or powering the greenhouse? (to oversimplify) Farm subsidies, which are evil for a variety of reasons, might throw this off, though.

@georgramer @edwiebe @alexwild Still not following you. If all prices go up, then the energy-intensive products still cost more, all else being equal, so same steering effect as before.

@georgramer @edwiebe @alexwild I don't get how that would cause misleading price signals about carbon impact.

@edwiebe @georgramer @alexwild Why would billionaires act in that specific way? Can you give me an example?

It seems that very roughly, the price of something reflects how much energy was used to make it – literally, that is what you are paying toward – and therefore how much carbon emissions. I know there are plenty of exceptions, but when in doubt just do whatever option involves spending less money.

@georgramer @edwiebe @alexwild It's really tough to answer questions like that – surprisingly often, the obvious choice is wrong, like paper grocery bags etc.

For your specific questions:

* I seriously doubt tearing out your central heating system is a good idea, simply because manufacturing the appliance is so energy-intensive.
* I don't know what a "Spanish farm" is, but if a local grower is *really* close it might be better? but maybe not: "industrial" farming is very efficient: e.g. big trucks are a lot cheaper per strawberry than small trucks, etc.
* I'm pretty sure delivery services are going to involve less driving than you driving to the grocery store: they can load up several orders and drive around to each one. But, if you can walk there that's probably better still.
But on all these questions, some more rigorous analysis would be interesting.

@alexwild Nah, it's about choices around consumption. Put your money where your mouth is. (Sure, a billionaire has more money to make decisions like that, but that's not the point.)

I'm sure there's some shenanigans around policy decisions like public transport, but if more people wanted to use it I guarantee there'd be more of it. etc.

@willallen but, 2 things:

1.) He could have easily traded secrets like that without moving documents to mar-a-lago or whatever. I mean, the mishandling of the documents seems orthogonal to whether he sold secrets or not?

2.) Other presidents and officials have inappropriately stored documents in their garage or whatever. Are we particularly worried about those? I don't think so, unless something new is discovered about how they were used.

The indictments talk about him showing military maps/etc or whatever to non-cleared people in his circle, though.

@illyana @juddlegum it was 2009–2013, but I think that doesn't really matter. What she was doing was incredibly clowny. (The server wasn't even configured and maintained competently!) Judd's points remain, of course – I don't think there's any reason to believe she had nefarious intent, and she cooperated with investigators. And she isn't the only Secretary of State to have a sketchy email set-up.

"no public, secure options at the time" She shouldn't have used public options, of course. I know this kind of thing has happened, but I don't think we want high level officials using hotmail.

@freemo @laurahelmuth the law does mention stripping.

@freemo @laurahelmuth in fairness, I suspect the Tennessee law was just posturing; isn't that sort of thing already illegal?