Magnets can reduce the cosmic ray risk:

https://phys.org/news/2026-07-permanent-magnets-astronauts-s...

In the south terminal at Seatac airport, there's a long escalator from the subway. Everybody crams onto the escalator, I just go up the adjoining steps two at a time and get there long before everyone else.

I just don't understand people who are content with just standing there on the escalator. And I mean able-bodied people, about to sit for hours on an airplane.

Of all the places to judge people for taking an escalator, you pick an airport? Where you have people with heavy luggage, people traveling in groups of mixed mobility, people who spent the entirety of the preceding days walking around looking at sights, people who didn't sleep well on an unfamiliar hotel bed?

Or given a non-airport station, I've found myself standing on the escalator during my morning commute ever since I ramped up my exercise routine. So when you see me, I'm standing because I hit a PR on my squats earlier that morning, or because I finished a 14k run less than an hour ago.

The escalator is long after you've checked your bags and gone through security, so you've just got carryon.

The people you are referring to are a small minority. I'm usually the only one taking the steps.

If you're really in bad shape, there's an elevator.

I once worked in a Japanese tower for a few weeks. The office was on the 6th floor. I'd play beat-the-elevator with my coworkers. They'd get in the machine, as I casually leaned against the wall.

As soon as the doors closed, I'd sprint up the stairs, with the intent of lounging against the wall, pretending I am not breathing hard, and pretending to look at my watch.

Unfortunately, I rarely made it past the 5th floor sprinting. But there was still enough time to walk up the last flight and implement my evil plan.

My coworkers just looked at me with their "gaijin" expression.

I did similar at university. Only two flights of stairs, but one time I pressed the Up button on the middle floor so they got an extra stop and more time to regret their choice :-) Fun times.

Thank you! Amazing work! I've always had a soft spot for the 8087.

Maybe implement the algorithm in C? Thank would be fun!

The Seattle Times ran an article maybe last year that measurements of sea level at Seattle had increased 8 inches over the last century.

The flaw in that is what is the reference frame? The tectonic plate Seattle is sitting on is going down under the cascade mountains.

And beaches have been eroding for millions of years.

If you're talking about this article[0], you'll have to argue with NOAA[1] as that's the source that The Seattle Times used to determine that the "high tide in Elliot Bay has risen 10 inches since 1899".

Since you didn't provide a link to your referred article, I have no idea if the Times blamed any particular cause or not. In the article I've referenced, there were several causes for the flooding in the South Park neighborhood.

[0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/4-thin...

[1] https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station....

That still leaves open the question of what is the reference point, when the land also rises and falls. Plate tectonics wasn't even a theory in 1900.

Geod-Ellipsiod separation dynamics both mean globally and on a plate by plate basis accounting for creep is a thing. As is epoch based modelling and forward and backward projection.

So measurements from harbour posts can be reconciled to WGS84 despite a bit of Californian bounce.

Except that would trigger a massive reduction in investment, which would be very damaging to the economy.

Why? What are they going to do with the money instead? If you charge, say, 5% on unrealised gains, possibly discountable against CGT on sale, say, then do you think rich people are really going to go "well, now I'm only getting 9.5% return instead of 10% return, so I'm going to sell all my shares and build a Scrooge McDuck style swimming pool full of money, instead"?

There are cases where taxes can hurt investment, but you're really talking about quite high rates. For instance, the US peak rate of income tax used to be 94%. That almost certainly _did_ hurt investment.

Such taxes will make marginal businesses go out of businesses, and turn otherwise modestly profitable businesses into marginal ones.

Eventually, the loan gets paid back, one way or another. There's no escape from it.

Don't overlook the fact that the borrower pays interest on the loan.

> Especially with how the market has been lately, the gains erase any burden of the loan.

And when the market goes down, you get a margin call and get wiped out.

Maybe we should tax your mortgage, too!

> Rent is a function of supply and demand, not a landlord's costs

Of course it does. The landlord's costs factor into the supply made available by landlords.

> When landlords' costs drop, do they drop the rent in response?

Competition says they do.

Competition is not one thing. For a producer of widgets, competition means that there is immense instantaneous leverage if you can reduce the price, because buyers will switch to you, increasing your market share until your competitor can match - if they can.

A landlord is usually in a different position. If their personal costs drop (eg, they paid off their mortgage) but the market price stays the same, how do they benefit by reducing the price they offer? Only by reducing the time it takes to rent out, which isn't a significant factor in exactly case when tenants would most like rents to go down - when prices are high because of demand.

The details of these mechanisms matter. Market can be out of equilibrium for a long time; maybe indefinitely.

> Market can be out of equilibrium for a long time; maybe indefinitely.

Arbitrage forces say otherwise.