Again, 202 is about opening other people's mail/messages, with the electronic subsection being about accessing their digital messages when you aren't supposed to. And section 206 wouldn't apply to Drag at all, since they aren't even an admin. As far as I can tell, there's nothing legally wrong with sharing "private" messages that are sent to you.

I wouldn't expect the economics of private jets to work out either, and yet...

"Google" is just the generic term for a web search, kind of like how velcro means all hook-and-loop fasteners and xerox is a (photo)copy

https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev/suv

Based on your response here, I don't know what you were trying to say.

Wealthy people don't pay income [tax] very much at all, their income is made via capital gains.

Also consumption based taxes are the primary [taxes the rich pay,] so the richer you are the less [taxes] this will be as a percent of your income.

I thought you were complaining about the authors of the study not considering capital gains taxes, but it wasn't very clear.

Capital gains are profits from the sale of assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, and antiques. Nine states (Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaiʻi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin) provide income tax deductions or preferential rates for all long-term capital gains income. Other states—such as Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Oklahoma—offer tax reductions for realized gains from certain assets located solely within state boundaries.[11] These tax subsidies disproportionately benefit high-income and high-wealth families and tend to worsen economic inequality across both economic and racial dimensions.

Oh man, if only the authors of the study had thought about capital gains taxes, then maybe the map above that's only using income to divide the population would have been better somehow.

And yet we trust almost all of them to operate a 2-ton machine on a daily basis here in the US.

Do you live in a swing state? Because I don't. As far as I see it, voting third party won't have any effect on the election, but might at least signal that I want change. It's not like the popular vote matters in this country.

If that plan worked perfectly, you'd solve the land use and, giving you an extremely generous benefit of the doubt, the emissions from manure problems.

All you have to now is figure out how to build and maintain these high-rises cost effectively, and how to generate enough power for a matrix-like experience and all the VR headsets and treadmills for the cows. And even then you'd still be wasting a lot of food by feeding it to animals rather than just eating it directly.

From the source of link 3:

Figure 17 Primary Reasons for Leaving Last Housing, All Participants

• Lost or reduced income: 12%
• Conflict among residents: 9%
• Didn't want to impose/wanted own space: 7%
• Conflict with property owner: 7%
• Someone else became sick, disabled, or died: 6%
• Building was sold or foreclosed: 6%
• Violence or abuse in the household: 5%
• Breakup between residents: 4%
• Participant's substance use: 4%
• Other needed more space: 4%

and also:

To understand what participants believed may have prevented their homelessness, we asked them to engage in a thought experiment about the likelihood that their homelessness could have been prevented had they received financial intervention. We provided all participants with three different scenarios and asked them whether each intervention would have prevented their becoming homeless for at least two years.29 The interventions were: (1) a monthly rental subsidy worth $300-$500; (2) a one-time payment of $5,000 to $10,000; or, (3) a voucher that limits rent contribution to 30% of their income (such as a Housing Choice Voucher).

FIGURE 21 Participant Report of Effect of Hypothetical Homelessness Prevention Interventions by Family Structure

All

• $300-$500/month shallow subsidy: 70%
• $5,000-$10,000 one-time payment: 82%
• Housing voucher: 90%

So while "not enough money" might not have been the most common cause for people being homeless, the vast majority of people think having more money or cheaper housing would have prevented them from becoming homeless.

One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning

As long as it’s not ... extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down)

I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference here. And why is it you don't see polluting the air to be a direct health risk? If you wanted to ride a bike or walk instead of drive everywhere, I'm sure you'd see how car exhaust doesn't just disappear immediately.

Then how are you supposed to know which companies produce how much greenhouse gasses?