One way to see this is to consider the clock paradox. Spaceships A and B are moving about 86% the speed of light relative o each other. Spaceship A look at B and says the clock at B has slowed down by half. Time slows down for moving objects. But B says no, they are not moving, A is moving. So B says the clock that the clock at A is the one that has slowed down by half.

So how do we test who is right? If A goes and parks next to B to prove they are right then B would appear to be right. But if B goes and parks next to A to prove they are right then A would appear to be right. “Now” is not any more universal than up and down.

You can also have a later mutation that randomly takes advantage of a past mutation that was neutral or even somewhat detrimental to confer a significant advantage that wouldn't happen alone.

Yes. Evolution doesn't do A/B testing. If it survives and breeds lucky you.

No, they aren't. Aside from the fact that very few people could live like I do there's purely economic reasons why it's economic suicide. Economics is driven by the balance between supply and demand. If we have the productive capacity to increase supply but workers aren't paid enough to purchase that supply then production must get cut to match the repressed demand. This not only cost jobs it drives the entire economy down to the level that the pay (demand) can't support. It creates a demand constrained economy.

And economy can also be supply constrained when worker pay exceeds some threshold relative to capital returns. This actually happened back in the 1970s, as is why the Reagan revolution happened when it did. But where are we in that ratio at present? This graph is a few years behind but it tells the story. We live in a demand constrained economy. Thus providing fewer opportunities for businesses to invest in more production in spite of capital being flush with cash beyond all historical precedence. Which cuts economic growth. Especially compared to 1950s and 60s.

In effect not only is our economy smaller than it could be with the same productive capacity it growth is also slower. And all that capital is being spent on rent seeking rather than actually increasing productivity. Because pay is too low to support the demand need to grow that productivity.

Up until the 1980s economist were mostly settled on the tenet that the economy was demand driven. The data from the previous several decades had convinced them of this. So they overheated demand, driving inflation and even stagflation, to the point that it created a supply constrained economy. After Reagan economist became mostly convinced the economy was supply side driven. Especially given the computer revolution that was pumping massive investments and productivity growth. But they also froze out wages. Which meant workers couldn't actually afford to buy up all this excess productivity once the investments were done and companies wanted all the ROI. Instead seeking more wage suppression to maximize profits even more. Thus hurting demand even more.

So no, they are not full of shit. Not even when you ignore that my strategy would not be acceptable to any but a very tiny minority. Things will change sooner or later. I'm just afraid that when it does there will be no sense of balance (again) when it happens.

I live in a much cheaper CoL area but I get by on less than 7k a year.

Source ZipRecruiter:

New York City: $51,586

Los Angeles: $67,199

Seattle: $74,895

And that's the high end of the average range.

I'm older than 911. And cameras were a rarity and limited even in places that had them. It didn't used to take much brains to get away with most crimes.

I'm happy to see the original judge take their responsibility to remain impartial seriously.

>Indianapolis police have declined to share the details about how investigating officers found baby Kason Thomas, who went missing Monday in Columbus, Ohio, with his twin brother when a woman took their mother's running car with them in the back seat.

So the police didn't want to provide any details that would have robbed them of the credit for finding the kids.

>First the cousins called Columbus police, who told them to call the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. When they called Indianapolis police, the women struggled to get the point across that they believed Jackson was in their car.

>They got frustrated and hung up, and took the woman to several more stores hoping she would shoplift and draw authorities' attention. They worried taking her to a police station might cause her to run.

So even getting the cops to respond became a problem.

>Curry said throughout the shopping trips, she made calls to detectives trying to relay all the information she received from her cousin about their belief "Mae" was the suspected kidnapper.

Finally they got a response the cops, in the worst possible way.

>At one point the police called while the women were in the car, the cousins said. Not wanting to tip off the woman, Curry said she pretended to be talking to a friend and indicated they were driving on I-65 south. The women said police found their car and conducted a traffic stop. "Mae" at that point went quiet, the women said. Curry said a police officer initially seemed skeptical about whether it was Jackson, and said they should take her to a shelter.

So even when they had the kidnapper in their grasp the cops still had to be convinced it was actually the kidnapper.

>Curry said she showed police a screenshot of Jackson’s mugshot and after comparing the woman in the car, the officer decided she did in fact appear to be Jackson and took her into custody about 2 p.m. Thursday.

Only now there's still the problem of a missing baby.

>Aware that temperatures were about to plunge into subzero territory, the cousins knew they had to turn their attention to finding the baby. In the back seat they found their first clue: "Mae" had left behind a bus schedule.

Like the time my car was stolen and after getting it back the cops weren't interested in the (court) documents in the car that identified the thief.

>Since the stolen Honda that Jackson is accused of driving also was missing, they decided to trace the bus route and look for vehicles covered in snow that would indicate the car hadn't moved in a while.

So these people were better detectives than many detectives.

>The women were about to give up, they said, and were getting hungry. They saw a Papa John's on Indiana Avenue and were thinking about getting food when they saw a Honda in a parking lot covered in snow.

So basically these peoples story was essentially plagiarized by the cops.

>Delmar said she saw a couple officers inside a Blaze Pizza nearby and rushed to tell them about the baby.

So now the cops credit themselves with the stop that resulted in the arrest of the kidnapper, in spite of the trouble these people went through to convince the cops to make that stop, and now they also credit themselves with finding the baby that these same people actually did the legwork to find.

She didn't die in a hurricane , she died in Hurricane, Utah.

> You suggested it though.

No, I did not. I did not even suggest that woman aren't the majority of abusers, and it can't be determine whether that is true or not based on the data provided. The only thing that I said wasn't a suggestion, it was a fact. That fact being that the raw numbers provided can't answer that question. The exception being that we can know, from the OP link, that foster parents tend to be abusers more often than day care providers because the raw numbers are nearly identical while far more kids are exposed to day car.

Never said that. Only that single mother households outnumber single father households. Neither did I suggest any of it is permissible, no matter whether single mothers, single fathers, both parents, day care, foster parents, friends and family, or strangers.

These numbers are raw totals. There are far more mothers with full custody than fathers. So by raw totals mothers would outnumber fathers even if the mothers and fathers were equally likely to be abusers. This also applies to differences in day care provider and foster parents. Far more kids are exposed to day care than to foster parents. So the fact that the totals are nearly the same indicates that foster parents have a far higher rate of abuse. The opposite applies to friends and neighbors. The fact that friends and neighbors are essentially universal among kids while their raw abuse numbers aren't that much higher than day care providers means that abuse from friends and neighbors is particularly rare on a per capita basis.