It's seemingly closer to $6b for that year, which is obviously a ton of money, but considering they employ north of 50,000 people, if each person costs them $75,000/yr that's already $3.75b. NYC spends $2b on just their department of sanitation. It's a city with like 8.5m people, everything costs crazy amounts of money.
https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/05/NYPD.pdf
https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/05/DSNY.pdf
Let's take a look at Minnesota, a state with ~5.7 million people, and 8 congressional districts. We need to create 8 congressional districts with approximately 700,000 people within each, using existing county lines. Hennepin County, which contains the city of Minneapolis, has about 1,260,000 people, which is 71% more than their appropriate share. Clearly, we can't use Hennepin County as an "already drawn" line as it is, which kills the "use counties" plan immediately, but let's continue.
Ramsey County, the second most populous, has 535,000 people. Dakota County, 443,000. Anoka County, 369,000. Washington County, 275,000. Together, these 5 counties comprise 50% of the State's population. All 5 of these are relatively dense, and surround the Twin Cities area. We need to split these 5 counties into 4 congressional districts, to appropriately represent their share of the congressional districts. Hennepin is out since we obviously need to give them 1 seat on their own. After that, we need 7 districts of 634,000, 4 of which should come from Ramsey, Dakota, Anoka, and Washington counties. The easiest way to get close to this is to give Ramsey and Dakota counties their own seat, and to combine Anoka and Washington Counties into our final district. Conveniently, these two are geographically adjacent, so we don't even have to draw any weird districts with physical separations.
Now. The rest of the state is WAY less dense, so getting those districts to be roughly proportional for our 4 remaining districts is probably not going to be that bad, and I'm going to set them aside. Jumping back to our metropolitan area, we have Hennepin's district that represents 1,260,000 people, and Ramsey County's district which represents 535,000. So, the residents of Hennepin County have approximately half as much representation as the residents of Ramsey County, even though these counties are adjacent to one another, and each contains one of the two Twin Cities.
If we do allow some level of mix-and-matching some portion of certain counties, then presumably we use some other criteria in order to draw the lines. We can come up with metrics we think are reasonably fair, but ultimately it's all subjective at the end of the day. And, when we look at the actual congressional map for Minnesota, we find that it kinda looks like balancing these edge cases is already what the map looks like.
I'm not going to claim that this is a perfect, unbiased congressional map. I'm guessing many very reasonable people would disagree. But it's meant to illustrate that using previous arbitrary lines doesn't really buy us any better of results, since those lines weren't designed to facilitate political representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota%27s\_congressional\_districts#/media/File:MN\_2022\_congressional\_districts.jpg
It's not explicit from the article one way or the other, but the "investigation" seems to refer to officials from the fire department, which doesn't imply that charges are being considered but instead that questions about policy adherence have been raised.
It's a poorly written article, with polarizing ambiguity.
The federal government spent something like 6 Trillion Dollars last year, meaning the cost would be about 6% of our national budget. Knocking off 1/3rd for the people who would refuse to participate, 4%. If the process happened over 5 years, you're talking about <1% increase to our annual budget. And practically speaking, 15 years might be a more reasonable time frame simply given the enormous scale of the thing.
Sure, $332b is an absolute fuck-ton of money. But it's not an inconceivable amount of money. That's not to say we should do it, simply that the argument we can't afford it doesn't really check out.
It's not about an honest belief that someone will identify as trans to commit a crime, it's about the advantage of identifying as a victim in order to push an agenda.
I mean, an IPO is a pretty reasonable point to allow insiders to trade. You've just published a huge amount of information about the company, so the insider advantage is at a relative low. It's somewhat common for blackout periods to exist prior to things like earnings announcements, but after the announcement is usually when trading is permitted.
To stop the part from sliding off, not the whole pedal.
Put a fastener through the thing, preventing it from moving?
What differences do you see when you use Vulcan? And what's the deal with triple buffering?
No one would ever say millibits, because a bit is the smallest meaningful datapoint. It's a non-existent term, and a very pointless pedantic hill to try to build so that you can die on it
Just got a Mac last week, and was able to set up file sharing with my PC in less than 5 minutes last night. In fact, it was way easier than getting the sharing working with my Surface, which refuses to acknowledge my desktop's existence.
I don't generally encourage buying a Mac, I'm not at all convinced it's worth the price premium. I'm only commenting insofar as I have context.
Because protecting user privacy is not a priority.
The hell is going on with this article, is this bot-written? The top-line reads that the CCDH are the ones running the analysis. But the very next line reads "Streaming Platform YouTube said they analysed over 12,000 videos across 96 channels using an AI model crafted specifically to be able to distinguish between reasonable scepticism and false information." So it kinda sounds like this should be titled "YouTube study investigates changes in climate denial rhetoric, finds deniers are succeeding at skirting older protections." and then go on to explain that the new model inherently identifies this problematic content.
Listen, I'm not a big fan of Google, but as written this is just a shitty hit piece arguing in favor of an activist group that seems to be calling on YouTube to do the thing they've just said they already did. Unless the claim is that YouTube just went "Huh, weird. Guess we'll keep making money on it anyways!" and there's proof of that, this feels pretty deliberately misleading.