I disagree with your assertion that suicide can be designed away whereas sleep cannot because it is a necessity.
Anybody who wants to commit suicide will do it if they are motivated enough. Putting bars outside a window, or preventing a window from opening are only preventing a specific type of suicide.
Similarly, preventing somebody from sleeping on a bench won't prevent them from sleeping. It will only prevent them from sleeping on the bench. They can sleep in front of or next to the bench, having the same "blocking" effect which prevents others from enjoying the use of the bench.
Some people theorize that suicides can be prevented by inconvenience, and perhaps some very marginal percentage can, but I agree with you. In general, those who jump from fourth floor windows are attempting something different than those who take half a bottle of sleeping pills. It is of course disconcerting to see the residue of suicide, so that might justify some efforts made to discourage suicides in particular locations, but only so long as those efforts don't render those locations less aesthetically suited to their purpose.
The problem with roads is induced demand. The increasing trend towards urban density requires moving more people around increasingly denser urban areas. Freeways were great in the 50s and 60s but have proven their limitations in sprawled, urbanized areas like Atlanta, DC, and Southern California.
Rail moves more people over time than freeways in urban areas, but with less flexibility for destinations. Urban planning should prioritize building transit-oriented development around these rail corridors allowing for more people to live within a reasonable commute time to jobs.
Freeways should not continue to be built and expanded in urban areas. Wrong tool for the job.
The trope that minimizing your taxes is good and should be encouraged is tired and political. The reasoning that one isn't breaking any rules is like saying it's ok to take the entire bowl of Halloween candy because there aren't any rules against it. It is against the spirit of taxes which pool resources for the greater good of everyone.
Everybody has to pay taxes. Some people have the means to avoid paying a fair amount and retain even a higher percentage of their income. The poor pay many direct and indirect taxes which equals a higher percentage of their income than rich.[1]
Not saying that the world needs to be fair for everybody, but it's disingenuous to take advantage of public services and resources and say it isn't your responsibility to pay for them in an equitable way. Warrent Buffet understands this and wants it changed. [2]
And no meaningful tax reform law has any chance of passing due to gridlock in Congress. People like Zuckerberg are flaunting this fact and daring somebody to close loopholes.
Would you argue that taking advantage of your 401k deduction is unfair to everyone else? How about the mortgage interest tax deduction? Deduction for child care?
The grey area of tax avoidance - misusing tax laws in ways that were not intended - is not illegal, but not fine. A variety of bizarre corporate structures and dodges are used and the only purpose they serve is to shuffle tax away from government. There's no reason Starbucks has its own coffee bean roasting company that sells its beans at huge price to the Starbucks coffee shops. The only reason it's been structured like that is to funnel tax away from governments where the shops are to the tax haven where the coffee roasting company is.
When a London business, selling products in London, to people in London, buys Google ads from the Google London office, paying for those ads from their London bank account to Google's London bank account in GBP the only reason someone in Ireland rubber stamps the paperwork is so Google can -quite legally- avoid tax.
These are scumbag moves and they create a lot of hostility.
I would think the light reflecting back into your face in fog and smoke would be a bigger detriment than benefit. Utilizing high beams in snow and fog while driving is discouraged for this reason.
Hopefully you wash your hands after using the bathroom, regardless of if you use your hand to physically remove matter from your body. But a quick google gave me 37 gallons, 1.3 kWh, 1.5 lbs of wood per roll of toilet paper. That is a hefty amount of consumption that is flushed down the toilet.
http://www.treehugger.com/bathroom-design/stop-using-toilet-...
"Wealth" is what enables those putting in "effort" to trade for others' "effort" in order to sustain oneself. Although nobody can eat "wealth" or his employer's bank credits, one can absolutely trade "wealth" for "efforts". This is the point of currency. Your strawman that "wealth" cannot be eaten is completely false.
How do you square this self-defeating mindset against the described millennial sensitivity where everybody expects a trophy and considers themselves special? Seems like you might be referring to older works who are already jaded by the system and not the new class of workers who will be taking over their jobs.
I don't understand why Altman doesn't address the underlying arguments against "hard work". The modern workers movement was about receiving more of the profit from business. He seems to want workers to take the pay cut while still providing the same incentives to capital investment.
This reminds me of the unhelpful SO answers where they state the answer to a question is already stated as part of a spec and won't be answered with a link to the spec. My preferred answer to these questions will quote applicable parts of the spec along with reference numbers and a link.
I don't understand why I have to click another link to go to another site that doesn't have the same context and awareness of where I just came from.
And may no longer even EXIST ... seriously love when working with old libraries and all i have is some dump copy on github of a long dead source code littered with comments about see the web page for the docs... the docs dont come from the comments, and lo and behold, the stack overflow post ... slaps you in the face with yet another link.
> Lack of heat at the facility likely contributed to the death of a detainee.
Causing the death of a detainee is not a threat. Perhaps negligence which should have consequences for those who were responsible for this person while in their custody.
Anybody who wants to commit suicide will do it if they are motivated enough. Putting bars outside a window, or preventing a window from opening are only preventing a specific type of suicide.
Similarly, preventing somebody from sleeping on a bench won't prevent them from sleeping. It will only prevent them from sleeping on the bench. They can sleep in front of or next to the bench, having the same "blocking" effect which prevents others from enjoying the use of the bench.