It is a paradox because there’s no objective, universal definition of tolerance. It’s literally impossible to be tolerant of everything. So you’re left with different forms of what intolerance people deem acceptable.

People make the same mistake about bigotry. It’s impossible not to be a bigot. You just don’t want to be the wrong kind of bigot. Now if only we could all agree on exactly what that was.

That’s just flat out wrong. Reprocessing is significantly more expensive at current uranium prices.

And so many states would throw up tons of roadblocks for reactors shipping their used fuel offsite to a central reprocessing facility.

No, not directly. You’d have to divert it and only irradiate it for short periods of time (30 days rather than the 18 to 24 month cycles that current plants have).

Proliferation isn’t a significant concern for reprocessing within the US. It’s primarily a concern for other non nuclear weapons countries that start it because they can then create nuclear weapons.

The US has no need to do that. They have more plutonium than they need for current weapons and it has a half life in the hundreds of thousands of years so it will last forever.

You obviously didn’t read the article as creating more stable schedules is exactly what they’re doing.

Is it enough, probably not. But let’s not make up lies.

I disagree, because there are some fugly people out there. Boobs are certainly no longer good boobs when the nipple is below her belly button.

And even within imax, there’s differing qualities of the projector. It’s all quite complicated and seems to be intentionally obfuscated.

It’s not fine if it’s what’s used in the title. It’s fine to include it as part of the post, but only including the surface temp in the title is misleading.

Yep. Unless you’re trying to cook eggs on the ground, then you can start letting people know when it finally gets hot enough to do that.

Nope, not at all. You completely misunderstood my point.

I’m not saying the ground suddenly got hotter and everything else stayed the same. In this case, it’s just a metric that’s quoted because it has a misleading high value especially by people who are just scrolling through.

It’s click bait.

Being friendly is far more effective than trying to punish people to make them agree with you. Especially when there’s no immediate and obvious consequence of their individual actions.

Talking about surface temperature is pretty misleading.

It doesn’t void the whole process. It may very slightly increase the degree to which it’s easier to launder money (I’m not convinced on that aspect since the money already originated from within the banking system).

Rather it prioritizes people’s right to their own property.

What you’re saying makes sense to me if you’re talking about a deposit of cash that was mailed. It doesn’t make sense to me for a wire or electronic transfer.

The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.

Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.

Then you shouldn’t let the transaction occur in the first place.

Sure, that sounds like it’s best addressed with enforcement of the requirements before keeping the money.

I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.

I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.

However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.

I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.

If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.

I understand that’s the law as it currently is. I’m saying that it shouldn’t result in any legal ramifications.

It seems they weren’t well setup, if they were then he wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he wired money before filling the required paperwork out.

You’re right that it’s incorrect about the racism. I was referring to the discrimination aspect.

If you’re aware, then why do you imply that it wasn’t discrimination? Or did I misunderstand that?

It absolutely does make sense because it is discriminatory. He’s absolutely correct.

The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad. They’re not. Most are in fact good. We just don’t tend to call them discrimination.

That honestly should be the law. If you can’t accept it without documentation, you should be required to return it. Of course you can also report it, but that’s separate.