1. They don’t need the full building anymore.
2. Building ownership requires maintenance which is either inefficient to have on staff or which you outsource anyways.
3. owning the building most likely means you are depreciating that cost over 27 years the end of which you have an old building. Renting the space means you can deduct the rent in full as an expense and you can move easily when the space is no longer up to snuff.

There is not usually an actual policy.

It's the fact that if a division shows that it can do the job with less resources then given they will be given less resources in the next budget, because why would it need more? it's shown it could do the job with less.

By spending the entire budget (even on seemingly stupid stuff) they can argue for the same or larger budget next time.

The city of Washington had its charter repealed all the way back in 1871, by the District of Columbia Organic Act.

Just curious, has anyone ever done that with a giant wave pool? I couldn't find any on YouTube, but that would be an awesome visual demonstration

Windows break easily with little or no tools. Boards take more effort to remove to gain entry. Replace the windows with boards to keep squatters out when the building won't be visited regularly or monitored for break-ins.

You don't want people stripping the property of valuables like copper wire or damaging the building. People that break into buildings to squat there don't generally take care of the place.

This makes the most sense to me. I hadn’t considered that the building would stop being climate controlled during the renovation. Thanks!

The red herring is the % that billionaires pay in taxes. As almost all of their wealth is held in stock, it’s not income. It can all go away tomorrow because it isn’t real until someone gives you cold hard cash for it. They still pay capital gains taxes on what they sell, sales tax on what they buy, and property taxes on their possessions. The us tax system is progressive and the wealthy already pay the vast majority of taxes.

As others have pointed out, you use materials in the container that have a higher melting point than the steel you want to melt.

A more interesting question is how do rocket nozzles not melt because they need to deal with both temps and pressures that will melt the materials they're made of in a matter of only seconds... And they need to do it in an environment that has no air to conduct away the heat...

Part of that answer is to use the cryogenic fuel as coolant before combusting it.

> Are you saying that sharing studies/literature is pointless?

Depends on what your goal is. Scientific and medical studies are written for a specific target audience that is not the kind of person that would be asking an ELI5 medical question on Reddit.

If you're a research doctor wanting to discuss a specific finding so that you can understand how it relates to your area of research or whether to establish a new standard of medical care around it, by all means share and discuss. Reading medical studies requires a deep understanding of study methodology and the scientific method that most people do not possess.

This is why we fought an obnoxious culture war in the middle of the COVID pandemic where people were vomiting up links to all sorts of studies that they felt "proved" their side when it rarely did.

Medical doctors have this training and this background and if you want to understand how a study relates to how you should be treated for your illness, the best way to do that is to talk to your doctor about it.

> So I did some search and almost all articles from big universities are saying acid in lemon does help cut the mucus.

No you didn't. You did a Google search for "lemon acid cuts mucus" and found links to sites hawking homeopathic or alternative medicine, food blogs, and YouTube content producers. If you'd found a real research study on the topic you should be able to link it.

You can do a Google search for other stupid things, like "vinegar cures cancer" and find at least a few search results that seem to agree with what you're searching for. Just because you can find a random site on the internet agreeing with you doesn't mean it's a medical fact.

> So, maybe you need to comeback with some legitimate sources (including doctors) that say otherwise.

I'm saying no significant evidence exists establishing that these remedies are effective at anything. A very small number of studies have been conducted into things like honey (not really lemon), and they all say things like this one does in the end:

>> There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

Windows don't do very well in unheated, unairconditioned buildings. Excessive cold (below freezing) or heat (above 100 degrees) both cause the glass to weaken over time. After a few years, the windows will begin to shatter on their own.

This isn't a problem if you're heating or cooling the building, since the windows will never get cold/hot enough to begin weakening. But it is a problem when no one is paying to run that stuff.

Cold poses another problem for windows - if the temperature inside of the building drops below the dew point, then condensation will form on the windows and drip down onto the interior of the structure, causing mold or rot.

Then there's the fact that human beings exist. Teenagers and college kids like breaking windows in buildings they know are abandoned. Squatters and thieves can also take advantage of the ease of entry/repair to gain access to the interior of the building. Getting through plywood is a lot more difficult and pretty clearly indicates to the police that anyone who is inside of the building is not supposed to be in there.

Pineapple juice works too, it's an anti-inflammatory

Yeah. Not sure why my comments were downvoted. Maybe ppl think I work for big honey or something.

Another comment mentioned citrus and sugar and referenced oranges and limes. I don't drink tea so I have no idea what ppl put in their tea.

There's also the tax advantage that comes from spending their entire budget. Since corporate taxes, in the U.S. at least, are based on a business' net revenue as opposed to their gross.

The following is based on the assumption that corporate taxes are 30% of a company's net revenue.

Let's say a company has a gross yearly revenue of $1 million.

Their base operating costs were $600 thousand shortly before the end of the fiscal year. Because of smart employees they ended up operating severely underbudget without sacrificing quality and while maintaining the growth the higher ups wanted.

So the company would get taxed based on their $400 thousand in net revenue. That's $120 thousand.

However, the company didn't expect to be taxed on nearly half of their gross revenue. They don't have the funds on hand to pay that much in taxes. They only have around $80 thousand that they've set aside to pay their taxes with.

And so they tell the grouos to spend the rest of their budgets.

Then, when it comes time to submit their records to the IRS, because of the final spending spree, their net revenue is $200 thousand.

That means that with a 30% corporate taxe rate, they'd only have to pay $60 thousand.

That's half of what they should have paid, considering they met their corporate growth numbers while operating underbudget and $20 thousand less than what they budgeted for.

So that $20k goes into yearly bonuses.

Several companies, Netflix for example, utilized this system to their advantage. When Netflix was first starting out as a streaming service, they purposely went in the red while expanding their company. Doing so gave them several tax cuts that they could use in the future once they stopped recklessly expanding and started reporting net profits.

[removed]

if you make 1000$ a month and a bottle of water costs 20 cents and I make 10$ a month and a bottle of water costs 2 cents, who is paying more?

Had a bad enough cough to be prescribed it once. Answer is: if you can't get any sleep due to the cough, you'll soon be too weak to fight what's causing it (or even to cough properly). Had been sick for 2+ weeks when I got the prescription, iirc only took it 3 nights. Once it bought me the sleep I needed to get my immune shit back together, I was feeling better in a couple days.

Constantinople enters the chat….

This isn't the part that confuses me. I don't understand why companies dont reward you for coming in under budget, and reevaluate assumptions when you go over budget.

A few reasons: first is that some people just like to break things. Windows in an empty building is a big target. So rather than have to deal with the mess of cleaning up a ton of broken windows, removing them and boarding them up is cheaper and easier.

Second, if they are renovating, then newer windows are much more energy efficient and can pay for themselves in reduced energy costs.

Third, the city may require upgrades like that on renovation projects due to better building codes.

Yeah I remember being around 11 and having the flu. My doctor prescribed pure codeine and my mum would give it every four hours. Needless to say I slept that whole week, lol.

[removed]

[removed]

This is a sentence too long, can I get a tldr?

It's tricky. The Catholic Church claims to be the original Christian religion, with the idea that the Popes form a chain of leaders that go all the way back to Peter the apostle as the first leader of the Church.

But it all depends on your perspective. In reality (or at least my opinion), it's more of a family tree of sects branching off from each other that all go back to the original followers of Christ. Of course, ancient Christianity would have looked very different from all modern religions, so it's a bold claim for any to say it is the same as that original group.

I can only really think of two reasons. One being it is easier to pass materials/furniture/appliances through windows that would or might not otherwise fit in doorways/hallways etc. The other would be the fear of vandalism as people know the house is empty so think it's fun to smash windows.