It really is hard; I can even think of laws passed this century that turned out to have loopholes. (And FWIW policy writing is a separate discipline)

Even the most basic laws can have surprising nuances in order to make them specific enough to enforce, as well. I recall a case of a person who tried shoplifting a coat that was chained to the mannequin, and got caught when it went taught. They got off because while they had left the store without paying, being permanently chained to something meant they weren’t technically in possession of the coat.

Carbon taxes still allow you to waste as much energy as you want. It just makes it more expensive. The objective is to put a limit on how much they are allowed to waste.

So per person carbon rationing, maybe? During WWII they did something similar with food; you had to pay both cash and ration tokens to buy groceries or visit a restaurant.

Rationing is fairly out of style because it’s inflexible, though. There’s going to be certain people that have a very legitimate reason to pollute more, and a soft incentive in the form of price allows them to do that if absolutely necessary.

Ah, so we’re just brainstorming.

It’s hard to nail down “no working around it” in a court of law. I’d recommend carbon taxes if you want to incentivise saving energy with policy. Cap and trade is also seen as a gold standard option.

Am I the only one that quite often leaves it at home?

I mean, even their wartime economy is getting questionable. They’re running out of old WWII tanks to refurbish, the cost of rural Siberian lives keeps going up, and revenues keep going down.

Yes. He says whatever he wants, though, and doesn’t worry about it being true.

I’m also starting to think this Hitler guy might have been a bit racist. /s

We wouldn’t like what they have to say, and would pretty quickly move from abusing them out of apathy to abusing them out of malice.

I mean, we have enough trouble being nice to slightly different humans, right?

I feel like this implies never losing is an option. The other players aren’t idiots either, so of course they’re going to prevail a statistically reasonable percent of the time.

(Serious answers are allowed, right?)

Interesting. So it sounds like this is an area with a lot of personal vacation homes? They’re pretty uncommon in general, so I doubt it would change much where I live.

Out of curiosity, how would you define a product for that purpose? It’s pretty easy to tweak a few weights slightly.

Yeah. Mounties like swinging their dick around as much as the next beat cop, and OP conspicuously didn’t mention how much they were speeding by, exactly. Since OP wasn’t at the wheel I don’t see how they could be ejected, though. Being an idiot’s passenger isn’t a crime.

No evidence? Yeah, good luck defending that one, guys. Like, not enough you could definitely argue for, but none is laughable.

Was there actual paperwork, or was that RCMP officer just power tripping?

Yeah, not surprised. An experienced software engineer in the US won’t have to do unskilled labour unless there’s something else massive going on with them.

More than once he’s said something that makes me suspect he’s bi. Too bad he’s also a legend-tier asshole.

You could dislike both.

I honestly don’t notice as long as the conversation continues.

Hmm. The warfare-related ones are pretty spot on. Wet powder sucks, if you’re not careful your musket can go off half-cocked and ironclads were well armoured. Ditto for taking no prisoners, although we tend to frown on that now.

My guess would be the more practical it would have been at some point, the less likely it started as a misconception.

I couldn’t actually tell you what all the Gates foundation does. Greedwashing exists, but as you say I don’t think Gates is doing it.

It gives away way too much to serve either purpose well.

I mean, according to this, the plan is to not be a billionaire. If his net life transaction ends up being bilking Western technophobes to pay for mosquito nets and clean water that’s cool.