It's like "I have a windows computer, I install software on it and use the software. Why would I need more than 1?" Turns into "ooohhh, computers are great. All the things I can run and host. Software isn't just a gui".
It's like learning to love computers again
Interesting. I might try them, or see if I can get them.
But I haven't smoked in a decade, and I have no urge to smoke again.
I'm addicted to the nicotine now, instead of the habit of smoking. Which works for me.
Oh yeh. I wish smoking was just completely not a thing and never was a thing.
When I started it was very socially acceptable and cheap to smoke.
Then it got less socially acceptable (indoor smoking ban), and a big bump in price. I tried quiting a few times, but I always ended up smoking again.
Somehow, when working hard and under time constraints "going for a smoke break" was an accepted excuse to spend 5 minutes outside. Bonkers.
Anyway, a proper vaping setup, making my own vape juice and all that had me forget about cigarettes within a few weeks, and I vaped for 5 years. Maybe 8?
Still had an excuse to go for a break, but I felt so much healthier vaping than I ever did smoking. And I could still sneak a vape indoors if there wasn't time for me to go outside.
Been on the pouches for 1.5 years now.
So yeh, increase the taxes on tobacco. A small bump for vaping nicotine (imo, safer than smoking but not risk free). And ideally no tax increase for nicotine products.
I could see a minor bump in taxes for snus/snuff/chewing tobacco. It's still a risk to the consumer (because it's tobacco), but it doesn't pose a risk to 3rd parties (because it's not burnt or aerosolised).
I hope it's sensible with regards to tobacco derived products (ie nicotine).
I used vaping to quit smoking. And I'm now on the nicotine pouches and have quit vaping.
I know I'm just swapping 1 addiction for another, but each has significantly reduced the risk to me and those around me.
But if the pouches do get more expensive, I'm sure there's some nicorette or some other official/medical nicotine thing I can swap to. I assume they won't get a tax increase (cause if they do, then the tax is stupid)
Huh, interesting.
I imagine the "don't have to stop gambling to take care of another addiction" is more important than perfect scents.
I'm actually taken aback that smoking in indoor public places is still legal.
I imagine if the demographic swings away from being predominantly smoking gamblers then casinos will react quickly to have isolated smoking rooms/areas
Cool Beans
movie
Hot Rod
Yeh it is.
Proving that a scientific theory is wrong means we don't understand enough about the thing. And we know we need to look at other theories about the thing.
Proving things wrong as well as failed hypothesis is as important (even if it is disappointing) as proving things correct and successful hypothesis. It rules the theory out, and guides further scientific study.
With published papers, other scientists can hopefully see what the publishing scientists missed.
Scientists can also repeat experiments of successful papers to confirm the papers conclusion, and perhaps even make further observations that can support further studies.
Oh, they do have psychological manipulation in mind.
There are 2 leading design types:
No clocks anywhere, designed to be difficult to navigate out of, designed to make the passage of time difficult to tell.
And open and bright with easy lines of sight, designed to allow gamblers to relax without leaving.
https://www.casinousa.com/blog/psychology-of-casino-design
The former was developed by an ex-gambler that "turned their life around" into an architect that manipulates gamblers to gamble more. He studied the successful casinos, and gathered up all the techniques that makes gamblers gamble more.
The open layout was developed in response to this, and solely concentrates on making gamblers feel relaxed (or able to relax).
But lighting, layout, smells, sounds... Everything is accounted for.
Casino owners know the design of their casino is what makes gamblers gamble more
yeh, I need 50,000 shell companies to manage social media, online media, traditional media, us law, print media, branding, exhibitions, TV media, streaming media, free streaming media, physical media and ad campaigns.
Any anti-human when a "$10 limit for judge is sponsored by" law comes into effect.
Seriously, these judges are being bought for 500k per year. I have no sources on this. I have read news reports of politicians being bought for 10k to 100k. And, for me, 500k would massively change my life.
So 500k to lean to one side, 2 cases per year: I would be set.
The fact that these judgements affect 10k, 100k, 1m people? I would have issue with that, but if it was boiling a frog of minor judgements that don't affect anyone but slowly increased impact and payout... I might not notice.
Especially if they slipped in a few no-impact rulings with extremely high payout (this is the "jackpot" method for training dogs, name coined from - I presume - casinos and gambling).
And by the time I've realised I've been bought out by the bad guys: I would be planning for my exit, the aftermath and my family. I'd be demanding more, selling everything out, and making sure the laws I effect benefit my exit.
It's bought & sold. It's disgusting.
They should be held to higher standards and procedures, with ACTUAL consequences.
I hope - at one point - they were human, and cared, and that's why they were selected.
If they were in-human before they were selected, then the system is broken.
Considering they have the power to reverse or approve government decisions, seems like THEY are the ones people should be voting for and that the president is more of a guiding figure
You wouldn't believe it!
He is. But the people around him and controlling/handling him aren't idiots.
It's either in project 2025, or some other republican playbook. Scattershot out a bunch of crazy news to swamp the news cycle and overwhelm everyone, then get to work doing the dirty stuff
I still read it as Magic The Gathering every single time