They addressed that though, the idea is that maybe they aren't literally actually commuting from another state and that's just their legal residence. The article showed evidence they were illegally living in the police station, so if that's the case it would explain why they aren't using that explanation as a defense.
It's kind of confusing why this would be a thing to begin with though, is the Bay Area really so expensive that 600k a year isn't enough to afford rent there?
The reason I'm thinking of it is I recently read this lemmy thread. The article itself is probably AI and not that convincing but I think people are making some good points about the pressures imposed by expense of housing and how those affect the desirability and difficulty of having children.
Of course a prerequisite for that to matter is that not having children is more of a real choice than it is for people with no resources in a state of poverty. But it isn't necessarily the case that the difficulty of raising children decreases with country-wide affluence, because wealth inequality is a thing, required resources (like housing space) might become more expensive relative to income despite overall increase in income, and other factors like an increasingly atomized career focused society where community can't be relied on as much to help raise children and the expectations placed on parents are higher, maybe requiring high daycare expenses.
So bringing capable workers in means they pay into taxes that support the aging and school-age population, and never had to have their school-age years paid for. They’re a productive member with half the cost over their lifetime.
I agree in principle with the logic here, but if those capable workers are being placed in competition with a population that is financially struggling, and those taxes are not being used to give those people more breathing room, that productivity isn't helping and is being employed on the wrong side of a class struggle.
I don't think immigration is bad, but if the "problem" of fertility below replacement is caused by the other problem of people who might otherwise want kids not being able to have them because of economic constraints, focusing on solving the first problem by importing competitive and ambitious skilled professionals seems at least kind of questionable.
I guess the only reason the headline doesn't specify is that it is a Florida local news site
I don't think the additional levels quite fit. From the original blog post:
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
The bottom two aren't really themselves arguments. They aren't things you read and then make a decision whether to take seriously, but rather means of controlling what you read to begin with. So while there is reason to criticize these practices, their inclusion muddles the scope of the message. The scope of the message is important, because the ideal of free expression has become more controversial since it was written in 2008, and it's not itself a defense of free expression, more of a proposed heuristic for getting more out of a debate with the assumption that you are approaching that debate with the intention of improving your rational understanding of something or leading others to a rational understanding.
IMO arguments about censorship and violence need to be made separately, because the value of that approach (as opposed to words being valued mainly as persuasive weapons) is in question and has to be addressed.
Until you physically can't communicate anymore, it's always an option to keep trying.
I am streaming my music but not like that, allow me to flex my custom setup:
So the reason they're like that is they are externalizing their self repression or something?
They have pepper spray, ramming capabilities, and speakers. Supposedly the idea is to distract the shooter to buy time and give away their position.
One thing that changed is increased powers of state surveillance and record keeping. Taxes used to be a much blunter tool because of limits on reliable and organized information.
The tariffs might not be the best way to go about it, but is anyone denying that chip manufacturing is an increasingly important factor in geopolitical power? Why would whoever replaces Trump just let those businesses die?
You have to explicitly invoke your rights though, or they can keep asking you questions.