Although your bill might only show one bundled price depending on who supplies and delivers your electricity, the cost of electricity in the US usually includes both a "supply" or "generation" charge and a "delivery" charge. Based on what I'm seeing on that page I think it's almost certainly only showing the electric supply rates, not the combined total of supply + delivery.
I don't live in California so the nuances are lost on me, but it looks like for SF county the residential delivery rate is about 19c/kWh, the supply rate ranges from roughly 12-16c/kWh, and "surcharges" are 0-1c/kWh, for a total of 31-37c/kWh. For San Diego county the delivery rate is 25-26c/kWh, the supply rate is 15-18c/kWh, and surcharges are 2-5c/kWh, with a total of 45-46c/kWh.[1]
To be clear when I said 0.11/kWh in Chicago I was giving the total price, including both the supply and delivery.
California has some ridiculously expensive power costs. I moved to Chicago in 2021 after living in the bay area for 11 years, and the amount I spent on electricity absolutely plummeted.
It depends on the climate where you live though, right? Where I am there's plenty of congestion. There's also plenty of rain, snow, slush, and road construction. The snow removal and construction really take a toll on the lane markings, so detectable lane markings isn't a guarantee either.
I'm also in the northeast US (more specifically New England) and that's the issue I couldn't get around when I looked into it.
My AC unit is only 1.5 tons but my furnace is 40k BTU and, unlike the 75k BTU furnace it replaced, is appropriately sized for the space. (Why someone previously installed such a massively oversized furnace I will never know.) If I remember correctly a 1.5 ton heat pump is roughly equivalent to 18k BTU, so it might be useful in the all too brief cool but not cold periods in spring and fall but in winter I'd still mainly be relying on the gas furnace.
> A strange tip had arrived from Belgium’s gambling commission.
I can't speak to Belgium specifically, but in many areas one of the responsibilities of the gambling/gaming commission is ensuring "fair" gambling. So they probably care more about the impact of match fixing on the "fairness" of sports betting rather than the reputational (I assume that's what you meant rather than "repetitional") risk to any particular sport.
When betting is involved, I don't see match fixing as all that different from someone bribing a casino employee to use dice loaded in their favor or help them cheat in a game of cards. Or depending on who's involved, maybe it's more like the casino using dice loaded in the casino's favor.
In any case I think it basically amounts to fraud. The published odds are inaccurate because the outcome has been fixed, allowing the people aware of that to make money at the expense of the people unaware. Fraud is generally a crime, so as long as the match fixing isn't reflected in the published odds IMO it isn't all that surprising that it's a crime.
> So they probably care more about the impact of match fixing on the "fairness" of sports betting
Not the 'fairness' of sports betting, but the impact on the sports betting industry. If people think sporting matches are fixed, they will stop gambling which is bad news for the gambling industry. It's why the NFL, which is now in bed with the gambling industry, is so paranoid about players gambling. It not only is bad for the NFL, but especially so for the gambling industry they are partnering with.
The sports contest is not a gambling game though or even inherently part of one. The players are not casino employees of any kind.
The fact that a person can bet on anything that doesn't make influencing the outcome of events generally a crime.
Influencing outcomes is a natural response to wagering on outcomes. If that's fraud and unsavory then maybe the problem is the actual institution of gambling and not the manner in which people choose to participate.
(I'd also apply this argument to whether insider trading or stock manipulation should be illegal.)
The languages it gets translated to aren't deterministic so I put the same sentence in 10 times. I was curious if a simple statement that has a conceptual equivalent in many cultures would tend to survive relatively unscathed so each time started with "I made a cup of tea".
1. "I made a cup of tea"
2. "I work a tree cup"
3. "I have prepared a cup of tea."
4. "I made a cup"
5. "I make a cup of tea"
6. "I made a cuppa."
7. "I prepared a cup of tea"
8. "Tea"
9. "I made a cup of tea"
10. "I have a cup of tea."
Better than I expected really. I'm kind of impressed that it veered into slang on the sixth try and still retained the original meaning.
>The FDA approved Tezpire as a breakthrough drug for asthma in December 2021. Tezspire excluded morbidly obese people from their efficacy trials.
This statement is very misleading because morbidly obese people were only excluded from the Phase 2 PATHWAY trial[1] and were not excluded from the larger Phase 3 NAVIGATOR trial[2]. The FDA approved Tezpire based on both trials demonstrating efficacy, not just the PATHWAY trial.
To me, a lot of this reads more like some sort of "Team/Company Values and Culture" document than the user manual of a single individual.
Things like "Default to action" are pretty dependent on team/company culture and what you're working on. Your coworkers won't start defaulting to action just because you prefer it if their boss, their boss' boss, etc prefer cautious consideration. There's nothing wrong with preferring to work somewhere with a "default to action" culture, but presumably by the time someone is reading this you've already made the decision that the culture is a good fit for you. (Ditto for "There’s life beyond work". If that isn't the existing culture, then as a reader all it tells me is that you choose to work somewhere that doesn't share your values and we may be in for a bumpy ride.)
Similarly, the way it's written now "Mind the channel" reads like a mandate about team/company norms and culture. Despite being under the heading of "How to efficiently work and communicate with me", rather than explaining which channels of communication you prefer in which contexts, it makes a broad statement about what the reader should consider when communicating with anyone. IMO guidance on how to communicate with others in general, rather than you specifically, belongs in a team handbook and not your personal user manual.
"Don’t give clues" on the other hand is a good example of something that does seem to belong in a user manual. It explains something about you and tells the reader how to more effectively communicate with you. It doesn't make broad generalizations about how they should communicate with others in general.
In the end, I wonder whether this should be split into multiple documents - maybe a user manual (for people working with you) and a separate list of what's important to you in a working environment and company culture (for yourself when job hunting)?
In any case, for the user manual I think it would help to replace broad platitudes and decrees with statements focused on you. If a statement would make sense in a team handbook or similar, I think that's a sign that it may come across as inappropriate/presumptuous in your personal user manual.
The requirement the GP was referring to comes from the combination of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) rather than the ADA. The Telecommunications Act requires "video programming distributors" to provide closed captioning for most televised video programming (televised being the operative word here). The CVAA extended the requirement so that it also applies to televised video programming distributed on the internet. But according to the FCC's consumer guide on the CVAA, it "does not cover programs shown only on the Internet"[1].
The CVAA doesn't apply to Teachers Test Prep any more than it does to Netflix. But Title III of the ADA includes a section on "Examinations and courses" that states "Any private entity that offers examinations or courses related to applications, licensing, certification, or credentialing for secondary or postsecondary education, professional, or trade purposes shall offer such examinations or courses in a place and manner accessible to persons with disabilities or offer alternative accessible arrangements for such individuals"[2]. That's what the Justice Department found them to be in violation of. The fundamental problem was that their courses were inaccessible; lack of captioning (or other "alternative accessible arrangements") was what caused them to be in violation but wasn't a violation in and of itself.
By how much and why the cost of labor has changed over time is an interesting question. I'd assume that the bulk of the cost of labor is wages, but there are some other direct and indirect costs that might contribute in addition to wage related factors.
Carrying workers' compensation insurance was not the norm at the turn of the 20th century; injured workers could instead sue their employer for negligence but usually lost. Legal challenges to state legislation that made participation in a workers' compensation program mandatory weren't resolved until the Supreme Court's 1917 ruling on N.Y. Central R.R. Co. v. White. In the modern day, Texas is the only state where workers' compensation insurance isn't mandatory.
In a similar vein, workplace safety standards have seen a lot of change. With the exception of a few states that passed legislation sooner, workplace safety was largely unregulated until the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 established OSHA.
I know less of the specifics but consumer protection laws have also changed. Many states now impose statutory warranties on new construction that cover construction defects for a period of time. It seems plausible that builders had less liability for such defects in 1914.
Construction equipment and the cost of running and maintaining it is another thing that I would expect gets rolled into the cost of labor. I'd assume that equipment costs are usually offset by increased efficiency (paying wages for less time), so it wouldn't increase the cost of labor, but it would be interesting to see data on that.
As far as wage-related factors, while blue collar wages may not have changed in general there are some exceptions. Based on the sources you provided, plumbers in 1913 San Francisco worked 44 hrs/wk and made $0.75 per hour for an annual wage of $1716 (or $44.9K in 2020 dollars). The median plumber in 2020 San Francisco makes $110.9K/yr. (Since SF might be an outlier, in St Louis in 1913 plumbers made $1515 annually, equivalent to $39.6K in 2020, and had a median annual wage of $80.6K in 2020.)
It's also possible the number and types of workers required to build a home has changed. Constructing a new home might now require more "specialists" (like plumbers) who command higher wages to do work that was either not done at all or was previously done by general laborers paid lower wages. It would be interesting to see data on that as well.
I'd guess personal preference of the musicians themselves is part of the reason microtones aren't more common in "western" music. Most of the musicians that I personally know at least seem to prefer creating/performing music that sounds good to them. And compared to non-musicians, most of them are also more aware of and bothered by notes that are "out of tune", especially ones with "classical" training.
I don't live in California so the nuances are lost on me, but it looks like for SF county the residential delivery rate is about 19c/kWh, the supply rate ranges from roughly 12-16c/kWh, and "surcharges" are 0-1c/kWh, for a total of 31-37c/kWh. For San Diego county the delivery rate is 25-26c/kWh, the supply rate is 15-18c/kWh, and surcharges are 2-5c/kWh, with a total of 45-46c/kWh.[1]
[1] https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/RateComparison