You can add an ad-free Hulu subscription for $1 per month once you subscribe to Disney+ (ad-free). I'm not sure Disney really needed the content as much as they wanted the subscriber base that they could glam on to their existing packages. I'm not sure it has been profitable, and will take a long time to pay off that $9 billion investment.

...or if they knew about the acquisition pitch before it was public knowledge and used that insider knowledge to buy even more Warner stock...(or if they get insider information that the sale isn't going through, and then sell their Warner stock before that news drops...)

Most "normal crossings" are incredibly dangerous for pedestrians. Kids shouldn't have to risk their lives just to get to school.

In my community, the school buses stop diagonally across the road, blocking traffic in all directions with their bus until the students are safely to wherever they are going. Not only is it illegal to pass them when they are dropping off / picking up, it's impossible.

If that doesn't work, then I would get a few volunteer parents, give them baseball bats, and have them smash the headlights of any vehicle that passes the bus when the door is open. I suspect Waymo would *suddenly* find a software update that solves the problem. They don't care until it costs them money.

Yeah, in some vehicles the quality of the sound from SiriusXM is quite bad. It is better in my current vehicle, for some reason (or maybe it is just the channels I use that are better?). You can also stream your subscribed channels through your phone via your data plan, which has a much higher bitrate and better quality sound. But, unless you really love some specific channels, live sports, or having a DJ pick songs, you might as well just do that with Apple Music or Spotify.

You have an AUX-IN? Must be a luxury model.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jalopnik.com%2Fthe-story-behind-one-of-the-funniest-craigslist-car-ads-1825571462%2F

If you threaten to quit at the end of each annual subscription period they will offer you a much better deal. I've done this for years. You just have to remember to chat or call near the end of the subscription period. Also, you have to be careful that they give you the "all-in" price and don't try to scam you by adding in fees for "royalties" that are sometimes 50% or more of the subscription cost. Or if you don't like the offer, just cancel and they'll send you additional offers via mail, text, email, etc. for the rest of your life and you can choose to re-subscribe when one of those offers is good enough.

The truth is that you really cannot tell whether someone has a "healthy gut" from looking at what they put in the toilet. In fact, there isn't even a solid (ha) agreement on what "gut health" even means; and there is even limited evidence that a healthy gut produces overall health, or if overall health produces a healthy gut. See, for example: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

There is DEFINITELY no rigorous science that shows that sending photos of your poop to Kohler will make you healthier. None.

Did you even read the article you cited here? (And, btw, it's a news article, not a rigorous research article.) Person after person in the article points out that spending DOES matter, and it also really matters HOW it is spent.

Schools now have responsibility to do many things in society that were once provided elsewhere. Free lunch and breakfast, for example. Many schools have counselors and social workers, too. These are essential services to children who don't get them anywhere else. But they aren't free.

Also, the "overall scores," or tests, have changed somewhat too. Content changes, expectations change, learning needs change. They are definitely not teaching the exact same content now that they taught "in the 1970s." So making a comparison with students over five decades ago isn't really very meaningful, even for "test scores" (which, btw, have their proficiency requirements set by teachers).

Glad you brought up charter schools. The spending difference is largely a myth, since many charter schools have other sources of funding (such as donations or in-kind contributions), and many charter schools use the facilities from public schools and have little direct responsibility to pay for those facilities. So, duh, their costs would be much lower because those charter schools aren't building facilities. AND, many public schools STILL provide services for students who are enrolled in charter schools - special education services (which are very expensive), are often still provided by the public schools. Like private schools, charter schools also tend to skim off the families and students who are most motivated and have the most resources to put toward school.

It's a compelling talking point, but like many political talking points, the facts are much more complicated and there's really no good evidence that charter schools are systematically better, cheaper, or efficient.

Alcohol prohibition was not a universal failure - alcohol consumption was way down during prohibition, as were alcohol-associated issues such as violence and domestic abuse (drunk driving wasn't really as much of a thing in the early 1900s). But, there were other consequences from alcohol prohibition, such as organized crime, bootlegging, enforcement issues, lost jobs and businesses, and lost tax revenue. Now, after the end of prohibition, there's lots of tax $$ coming in and lots of jobs in alcohol, but also lots of death, illness, and other negative societal and family problems. Alcohol perhaps causes more death than any other legal substance in the U.S. (maybe tobacco would be first, I don't know the current numbers).

In any real-world situation, causality is really complex and lots of factors interact with each other. BUT, I would note, we still prohibit children from purchasing alcohol. And I see no reason to not prohibit social media for children.

...did something very similar (without the required stock investments) in a much more efficient way, and didn't require a billionaire to donate funds. Republicans hated the expanded child tax credits (although the expanded tax credits were very good at reducing the number of children in poverty), but are now celebrating this as a big "win"...because, I guess, it includes three of the Republicans' favorite things: 1) billionaires, 2) pretending the private sector does everything better than the government (and that the private sector does not directly benefit from subsidies, regulations, and other benefits provided by the government), and 3) big, fat, juicy profits for banks and Wall Street.

Do I have to explain how causation works?

A -> B is causation. It is one directional. You can have B without A; but if you increase A, you get more B.

For most "B's" in the real world, there are multiple factors that cause B. And often there are long chains of causes that go together. Which is to say, if we eliminate or decrease one "A", we would expect "B" to decrease, although we wouldn't expect it to disappear.

Yes, and I agree, but when technology companies intentionally make products (games, social media, and videos) that are extremely addictive, target children, and designed to maximize screen time (not to mention collecting children's private data and selling it to advertisers), that's a problem we can solve with regulation.

We've had good success with efforts to stop children from smoking. We can use similar strategies to get these addictive software products out of the hands of children, too.

It's a well known term...

Here's an example