Punishing the people who are suffering from addiction with a tax isn't ideal.
I think we might be better off with a national tax that goes towards funding the healthcare necessary to support people moving off. Want to stop smoking? Here's a clinic that will work with you to develop a plan, supply you with materials, provide the counseling and community support, all for free.
And sure, if you've got that in place, dial up the costs to onboard into smoking. Prevent new addicts through price and regulation, address existing addicts with huge outpouring of support. It's expensive up front, but gets us in a healthy state long term.
Interestingly it's not the only growth out of Feudalism. Miskin argues, for instance, that France and England had very different post-feudal trajectories, but England's move into Capitalism was so successful in the short term it required France to engage in Capitalism to stay relevant.
England moved to a landlord-rent model for their agrarian society, whereas France moved to a tax on production model for their agrarian society. The distinction there is subtle, but the English model encourages improvidence to ensure you can make the rent, and that improvidence leads to increased output, pressure on workers to move to cities and away from their familial land. The French model didn't put as much pressure on maximizing productivity, and their post feudal agrarian society was perhaps a little slower to take off economically, but wasn't burdened with quite the same social upheaval that capitalism led to in England.
It's a very interesting history, and I do wish we'd been able to see more post-feudal societies develop. I think there's a number of different economic models out there that would be functional. They might not be as economically strong, but they might have different strengths w.r.t. population health, happiness, or sustainability.
Yeah, it seems like (to me, a naive layperson) to be similar to how a prince rupert's drop exerts strong forces thanks to the mechanism of its cooling/shape. The copper somehow forcing other structures to form in an atypical way which enables the superconductivity.
And even at 250mA, there'd be tons of different usecases for a superconductor.
The instructions they provide in the paper seem fairly straightforward and reproducible, I'd expect that if this is in fact legit, there will be many attempts to replicate the result quite quickly.
Having a critique of a thing is orthogonal to being interested in the thing.
There are plenty of topics I find fun to engage in dialog about, despite having no interest in the topic itself.
We, as humans, seem to generally enjoy being a part of the zeitgeist, being swept away with whatever the latest fascination is, even if we aren't interested in the actual topic. And that's ok. We are allowed to enjoy that social experience on both the micro ("all my friends are getting really into houseplants, I will too!") and the macro ("lol, Elon Musk is an unbelievable idiot") scale.
You are clearly unable to have a discussion in any sort of good faith. You cannot just assert things are true and then say, "Well, they were just my opinion, but also they are axiomatically true."
I'm done. You'll probably tell me that I'm being ideological or something, but I don't have the time to argue with someone who isn't able to engage in a productive dialog. (Either the "we have different opinions, and that's ok, let's talk through them and listen" or the "here's some factual discussion, with some sources that aren't anecdata.")
Am I lying to my kid when I say I "work with computers"? No, it's an abstraction. My 8 year old doesn't need to understand what a datacenter is, but just because I elide details doesn't mean I'm lying to them.
>If that doesn't make sense to you, I suggest taking off the ideological glasses.
You might want to check and see who is wearing the ideological glasses. You are the one who has the hangup here.
Sex is. People enjoy sex. People can enjoy sex with close intimate partners or flings. People can enjoy sex or perform it for money. Not all sex work is penetrative either.
You've got a narrow and restrictive view of the world.
You can abstract it. My mommy is a dancer, or my mommy is an actor and she does shows for one grownup at a time.
It's really not difficult to find a true statement that is also not the whole truth. It's not like my kid understands what I do for a living beyond the company name I work for. Abstraction is fine and normal.
Someday I had to tell my kid that people have two mommies and some people have two daddies, and you know what? It was fine. You can abstract it for a kid until they are old enough to understand.
Why, why would you say that? Parent leaves for work, parent comes home from work with income.
Is it because sex work is dangerous? So is fishing, and pizza delivery, and construction.
Is it because sex work wears down your body? Plenty of general contractors, nurses, and landscapers have jobs that are more physically demanding.
I genuinely do not see how, if someone has a reasonable separation of work/home, it would present any more negativity on a kid's upbringing than any other physical labor.
I've got an ebike that takes me anywhere within ~10 miles easily, including picking up/drop off kids), and I'm a remote worker (though I could bike to the office easily.)