And Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, ...

401 people voted directly for her.

Who's angry about how people are spending their already-taxed income? Is that really a thing? Is it sincere or just racism masked as "think of the economy"? (Honest question, Not American. Don't live there, news to me).

The big beautiful bill included a 1% foreign remittance tax for outbound international transfers funded using physical cash, money orders, and cashier's checks.

Which notably, doesn’t affect money transfers in general, just ways that poor people transfer money, so the concern as stated is not in good faith at all, but rather a way to further punish migrant workers, primarily Mexicans, and is absolutely racial animosity.

Yet strangely not cryptocurrency or bank transfers

left alt + left shift + print screen toggles high contrast mode in Window 9x. That was always fun to do on an unlocked screen.

"common sense" is common sense because it is the "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts" (1).

Maybe what you meant to say is that the position isn't, in fact, "common sense", that it is neither sound or prudent?

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common%20sense

Keyword being "simple". The common sense solution often turns out to be unsound based on a more detailed perception of the situation

i.e. "every complicated problem has a solution which is simple, elegant and wrong"

Oh yes, "sound" and "prudent" haven't been in the ballpark nearly as often as they used to be :(

The dictionary definition is in spite of the fact that the phrase "common sense" is more often than ever being used to rebrand what was formerly known as "common lack of sense".

They wouldn't say it if it wasn't false :\

You can read the guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Might find this one relevant:

"If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did."

Thanks so much!

Repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48791799 (with 63 comments)

Felt it ~600KM away in a high floor, building was swaying. Others didn't feel it and at first I thought I was just [unusually] light-headed or something, but then we realized a door was swinging back and forth slightly, and a hanging plant was swaying.

I also dislike his self-promotion, but his work _is_ well know and, as far as I know, well looked upon. I think he has more expertise and knowledge in this area than most (including what you'd find in the news).

Ahh, thanks, that explains things a little more. I wasn't familiar with the author, and his tweet just read like one of those people on Linkedin who regurgitates knowledge and passes it off as their own insight.

Not sure how you get to that conclusion from the article when it ends with the conclusion from 5 health agencies that it's safe (and then more references from the scientific community that it's safe).

What in your view is the single strongest scientific conclusion supporting your statement that "it's safe"?

Are you moving the goal post? I generally trust health agencies, more so when they all agree.

No I'm asking what language/sentence you are referring to that says "it's safe"

60 years of research have not revealed any dangerous effects in reasonable consumption of aspartame. Hence it is overwhelmingly likely to be safe.