You are very confidently incorrect. So incorrect, it is hard to even start correcting you.
* Inflation is not caused by "putting your money somewhere" What on earth.
* At a high level, inflation is caused by either "too much money chasing too few goods" and/or the cost of producing the goods rising. Money supply can increase without causing inflation if the supply of goods can also increase. In short, the supply of money can increase without causing inflation if productivity rises to match it.
* Most people do not "put money" in loans what are you even talking about there?
* Bank loans do not automatically increase the supply of money. When a loan is taken out, it is (mostly) deposited to another bank, resulting in a net-zero change in money. Increasing the supply of money requires the federal reserve to take steps.
> In short, the supply of money can increase without causing inflation if productivity rises to match it.
You're actually agreeing with me. Money supply must be backed up by real wealth and production.
That's not how things work in current times. We have nearly zero interest rates, and currencies are backed up by literally nothing.
> Most people do not "put money" in loans what are you even talking about there?
Fractional reserve banking. Banks loan out the cash you deposit. They "efficiently allocate" the money in their custody.
> Inflation is not caused by "putting your money somewhere" What on earth.
It absolutely is. Banks can easily turn thousands of dollars into hundreds of thousands of dollars by repeatedly loaning out the exact same dollars numerous times.
It's some kind of society wide financial call stack. Too many defaults and everything starts unwinding.
> Bank loans do not automatically increase the supply of money.
Obviously they do.
Imagine you deposit $100 at your bank. It takes your $100 and loans out $90 of it to someone else. There are now $190 dollars in circulation.
Whoever took the loan goes off and spends it. Eventually it gets deposited back into a bank. Then the bank loans out $81 out of that $90. There are now $271 dollars in circulation.
And it keeps going.
You can inflate bitcoin via this algorithm.
> When a loan is taken out, it is (mostly) deposited to another bank
Irrelevant. Banks form interconnected systems. They all settle debts and accounts with each other.
> Increasing the supply of money requires the federal reserve to take steps.
The physical supply of money is irrelevant. It contributes only a small fraction of the circulating money supply. Money is numbers in bank databases now. They could run the money printers 24/7 and they'd never even come close to catching up to the inflation caused by banks.
I doubt it. Eating healthy is already cheap and easy (rice & legumes as a base, fresh or frozen veggies based on what is cheapest at the time). It just doesn’t taste as good and gets boring fast.
I respect that some prefer just to use SQL, but that isn't where most stand.
Also, instead of a reactionary "all ORMs are trash," where ORM probably means different things to different people, maybe you could provide some value to the conversation by providing specific points and/or arguments supporting your feelings about ORMs. At the very least, you could provide some citation to an article that does the summarization.
Canada and the UK (among others) have toyed with these kind of "use it or lose it" penalties for unnecessary empty premises. I think they're a great idea, but they don't seem popular, maybe because the benefits are spread widely while the costs are paid by relatively few, but politically powerful, landowners.
IMO corporate ownership isn't bad as corporations rent housing to individuals who can't afford mortgages. Let's say corporations are 100% banned from the housing market. 85% of Americans cannot qualify for a mortgage, where would they live?
Good thing this would have no impact on home values. Hedge funds getting involved is a symptom, not a cause. Hedge funds buy properties *because* home values go up due to limited supply. The only thing that can lower housing prices is a dramatic increase in supply.
The issue here is that, after M110, there is little the police can do to prevent *public* usage of hard drugs like fentanyl. Drug addicts will be smoking fent in front of a K-5 school and all the police can do is fine them. There is more enforcement of public alcohol consumption than fent / meth.
Respectfully, have you ever lived next to an encampment? I have. Is your assertion "Someone using fentanyl on the street isn't actually hurting anyone but themselves" based on past experience, or how you imagine the world ought to be?
I haven't but I've visited for a week with a friend who does. Of course it was sad to see people in so much pain, but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
Even if you have more specific issues with living next to homeless people, that doesn't mean they deserve to be in jail for drug crimes. They should be given housing.
Even if you did want to throw people in jail for being homeless, only about half of chronically homeless people use drugs (https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaign...), so outlawing drugs wouldn't even solve the issue you want it to solve.
No, they are hurting both tangibles- because they steal and attack bystanders, and intangibles- like ruining neighborhoods, driving down prices, making drugs more accessible to young kids etc.
> Really? I have a hard time imagining someone using drugs on the street offering to share with a kid.
These people have families. They may be parents themselves. They are living in a community, one which has children. Here in Canada, with how things are now going -- I now see young children in the tent camps with their parents.
Public drug use almost certainly encourages children to uptake the behaviour themselves. Children are impressionable. They adopt the behaviours of their parents, of their older siblings, of their older siblings' friends, and yes, even just people they see on the street.
Along with that, simple physical accessibility - the widespread presence of the substance in society - means children will have more access.
When cannabis was legalized in Canada there was a sharp increase in the number of children showing up in the ER from cannabis poisoning. [1] Children steal their parents' drugs all the time, both by accident and by intention. The more proliferate and visible drugs are, the more people walking around with some fentanyl in one of their pockets, the more such exposure incidents will happen and the more such drugs will fall in the hands of children.
I'm pro-legalization, for what it's worth. But this is one of those downsides I'm worried about.
I agree that kids getting access to their parents drugs is a problem (although I don't think that's what the person I was responding to was talking about). It sounds like you might agree that if a parent is using drugs but is still capable of caring for their children, the best thing to do would not be to arrest them but rather to either make sure that they're preventing their kids from getting access to those drugs (by providing them with a safe, for example).
You can rationalize all you want but a bunch of junkies hanging around where you live ruin everything. They make everything dirty, they are themselves dirty, drop needles everywhere and shit on the sidewalk. One junkie jumped up and ran towards one of my buddies in Philadelphia once screaming “I have HIV”. Get your head out of your ass.
I’ve also seen people in the street do wild things in Philly. And yes, homeless people are often dirty because the way don’t have access to running water. And yes, drug users sometimes litter needles (the crime you’re complaining about is littering, which is still illegal).
None of those things are a reason why someone should lose their freedom for using drugs. Prison isn’t a punishment we should throw around to people we find distasteful or annoying, it’s an extremely serious measure.
It isn't a question of backwards compatibility, it is just way easier to iterate / evolve in a crate than it is in stdlib.
For example, Tokio has the concept of "unstable" features, which have stronger stability guarantees than Rust nightly. First, you can use them with the stable rust compiler, second we guarantee that unstable features will not break across patch releases. This may seem small, but it lets us experiment with new functionality and get real world usage. Many of our users cannot use Rust nightly but can use Tokio unstable features.
Can you elaborate on "heavy weight"? Tokio lets you opt-in to only what you need via feature flags. This lets you use a small subset of the lines of code & transitive deps.
* Inflation is not caused by "putting your money somewhere" What on earth. * At a high level, inflation is caused by either "too much money chasing too few goods" and/or the cost of producing the goods rising. Money supply can increase without causing inflation if the supply of goods can also increase. In short, the supply of money can increase without causing inflation if productivity rises to match it. * Most people do not "put money" in loans what are you even talking about there? * Bank loans do not automatically increase the supply of money. When a loan is taken out, it is (mostly) deposited to another bank, resulting in a net-zero change in money. Increasing the supply of money requires the federal reserve to take steps.