Wednesday assorted links

Comments

2. Baby wipes are clogging America's sewer systems, and will require many millions, maybe billions, to fix. Should the cost be assessed against the baby wipers or the producers of the baby wipes?

The wipes clearly say that you shouldn't flush them. And you can't flush diapers anyway. And you can't really assess the producers, since the costs would just be passed back to the consumers.

It's a classic case of consumers misusing the product. It was common in the 70's for people to dump tires everywhere. But society didn't assess the cost to tire manufactures. Instead, we targeted people who misused the product through public information campaigns (anti-littering) and regulations requiring tire shops to dispose of old tires directly.

I suspect this problem could be mostly solved by a series of pubic service announcements. You could probably run ads on Facebook for $5 million a year and halve the yearly cleanup costs.

Yet the cup made no sound, a change-up, the cadence of pinpoint accuracy, and he watched me intently, figuratively, despite my gaze, he cut through with brevity, alight like he was outside under a tree and I was in the sun, and he moved like a porcupine with a coat of quills, and I dribbled in laughter at Orel Hercheiser’s parsimonious glare.

I'm with the prince on this one. Let's see, Facebook manipulates its users, undermines elections in the U.S. among other places while not mining users' data to sell them something, and is supposed to run some ads, paid for I presume by the makers of baby wipes, to stop baby wipers from dumping baby wipes where the baby wipers logically if ignorantly believe they belong.

The issue is probably not babies. It may have been a while since you've dealt with this, but most of the time you don't change a baby at a toilet. You have a changing table somewhere, and the natural place to put the wipes is in the diaper which you throw in a bin.

My money is on the catastrophic wipe situation (Gasp!) being caused by older, ahem, potty-trained people who want some sort of wet wipe and are embarrassed or confused and don't buy the flushable ones you get for toddlers or old people.

So don't tax diapers, that's not the people causing the problem.

It's probably obese adults that are causing your problem.

+1, Neruda wrote With seven green tongues
Of seven green dogs
Or seven green tigers
Or seven green seas
Stammering its name.

There are actually 2 different products.

Baby wipes are usually used to clean the behinds of diapered babies, and they are most often used (as you observed) at the changing table. Baby wipes are not flushable.

Flushable wipes are used for toilet-trained toddlers, whose behinds are still too sensitive for regular toilet paper. As the name implies, these wipes are designed to be sewer and septic safe.

Except that wipes labeled 'flushable' still clog sewage systems. I don't think this one is on the consumer.

The story is about an obvious psycho deliberately stopping up toilets with plastic bottles. No mention was made of baby wipes, diapers or anything else that could be negligently flushed down the commode. Geez.

3. “In a survey of 2,416 Americans, we find that the median consumer is willing to pay just $5 per month to maintain data privacy (along specified dimensions), but would demand $80 to allow access to personal data.”

---------------
AppleID can meet those terms, though I don't speak for the company. I think $80 per month is easily paid in savings from reduced finance fees that AppleID provides.

4. Second-hand harm from alcohol abuse.

[][]

"That alcohol regularly injures and kills people is obvious. But it’s worth pointing out the sheer scale of damage it can cause."

so let's ban alcohol -- what could go wrong with that ?

When alcohol is outlawed only outlaws will sell alcohol.

Of course, that's what actually happened....

This latest prohibition crusade from Tyler is a strange one on a libertarian site no less.

What is un-libertarian about choosing to abstain, and then making a case to others about why it's a good choice?

The study included 10 categories of harm and lumped them all together. One of the categories was being called names. I wonder what the number would be if they focused on serious harm? My suspicion is that it would not garner the media attention this press release received.

#2..."According to the complaint, Beeman told police he gets urges to do odd things, like look for bottles in the garbage to plug toilets. He said he stopped when he heard police were investigating."

Sounds like a perfect case for Jordan Peterson.

5. I would be more interested in where the drugs came from

Yeah, I have some mild concern about the way they treat fentanyl availability as exogenous. Might be valid, but maybe fentanyl showed up in the counties where there was demand for it, thus exaggerating the apparent effect of the presence of fentanyl.

Shouldn't Lagarde be in jail instead of conquering the leadership of various top-tier monetary organizations?

On what charge?

To my knowledge she was found guilty of negligence during the time she held the position of Finance minister in France. That's a pretty serious charge for any public servant and is usually a K.O. to any politicans career.

We aren't in the usual times, as a certain negligent chief executive in the US is showing us.

That sounds like something you would be able to provide evidence for...

Google is your friend

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/christine-lagarde-convicted-imf-head-found-guilty-of-negligence-in-fraud-trial-a7484586.html

So, harm equals hurt, apparently, in the eye of the headline writer.

I'm hurt to see such an equivalence, but definitely not harmed by it.

Particularly as this 'were more at risk for secondhand harms of drinking, too, like harassment or threats from other drinkers' sounds as if the Internet is likely causing even more harm among heavy users than alcohol.

#3 just as restaurants are willing to pay $10 to produce a dinner that will charge you $40 to grant you access to it. It's reassuring to read about the financial awareness of people.

2. Five months in jail for clogging toilets? This kind of ridiculous sentencing is a clear risk to liberty in the United States. You're living in a country where you are one huge dump away from prison. For what it costs to keep him in jail someone could be hired a person to supervise him while he cleaned toilets until his debt to society was paid.

In Australia Egg boy egged a senator and became a hero with no charges. A woman egged our Prime Minister and it bounced off his bonce. Despite the no harm no fowl status of the egging, she is being charged with common assault. However, she won't do any jail time. If she did there would be yolk in the streets and the PM would have no choice but to pardon her.

The guy caused ~$2500 in damages. Being generous can help to strike a deal with the plaintiff to withdraw charges. It can be inferred that he did not had 5, 10 or 20K in cash to make a deal with the plaintiff. So, poor people cannot afford to do stupid things.

The damages were done to public property: Deland Park and Deland Community Center. Egging a senator or Prime Minister may earn sympathy with the public, damaging a community center won't make you popular with anyone and won't motivate any judge to be less severe.

"poor people cannot afford to do stupid things..."

What a very different response than I had. I was thinking we sadly cannot afford to keep a guy like that on the planet.

How about you try giving him an x-box first and if that doesn't work to keep him out of trouble, then you can form an einsatzgruppen to mete out the people's justice to toilet cloggers.

See, the x-box solution would not only enable, but perhaps even encourage, him to reproduce; and I don't believe in government-directed eugenics in either direction.

Signed,
The only person on the thread who has had to clean/unplug public toilets, and that just because people seem to lose the ability they presumably possess to properly use toilet facilities when away from home, and not even because they intentionally were pushing bottles down the toilet to clog it, though once there was an accidentally flushed cell phone?

Never heard of an x-box improving someone's chances of reproducing, but I suppose miracles can happen.

PS: Good work spotting that I'm not actually a toilet cleaner. I thought my cover was good, but you saw right through it.

Not at all - so many commenters here dwell in whatever is the urbano-libertarian version of cloud cuckoo land; I would have to reset my mental model of the place if you did not sympathize with the incorrigible toilet-stuffer. (And, of course, have some funny notions about just who is producing the children that are our future.)

I would describe myself as a libertarian and my interest in individual liberty is why I am in favor of strict gun control, government provision of public goods, the pricing in of externalities, and moderately higher taxation.

In my opinion "American" libertarians really haven't thought things through.

What's a "Sheboygan"? A new category of LGBT?

#4 When an article starts off reciting the fake second hand smoke story as established fact, you can stop reading

Comments for this post are closed