It was meddling by both D and R in our economy, both were scared of invisible boogiemen of "something bad might happen".

Fear is a great motivator. Courage is standing in the face of danger understanding the risks might be worse doing nothing than doing something. This is a calculated risk and ought to be rewarded in the marketplace if it is correct.

Conglomerates are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. The good is they offer efficiencies in the marketplace. The bad is they take advantage of those efficiencies and often get "too big to fail" (a lie).

People guessing who have no stake in the market are making bad choices, because of other reasons. Both D and R do this. I call it the "There ought to be a law" reactions. Nobody stops long enough to say "no there shouldn't be".

PBS is primarily (85%) privately funded. It will continue to produce shows like Masterpiece, Nova, Frontline, and Sesame Street and people in places like Boston or Philadelphia will continue to benefit from them.

What public funding does is give viewers in poorer, more rural areas access to the same information that wealthy cities enjoy. It pays for access for people who don't have it.

By opting out, Arkansas public broadcasting saves 2.5 million dollars in dues, sure. But it loses access to about $300 million dollars in privately funded programming annually.

Seriously, the idea that we know all the practically important physics there is is the kind of thing only somebody who's never done science or engineering would believe.

Industrial R&D is important, but it is in a distrant third place with respect to importance to US scientific leadership after (1) Universities operating with federal grants and (2) Federal research institutions.

It's hard to convince politicians with a zero sum mentality that the kind of public research that benefits humanity also benefits US competitiveness. The mindset shows in launching a new citizenship program for anyone who pays a million bucks while at the same time discouraging foreign graduate students from attending universtiy in the US or even continuing their university careers here. On average each talented graduate student admitted to the US to attend and elite university does way more than someone who could just buy their way in.

Do Two parent families vs single parent families.

Making it in this world is about making good choices consistently. Constantly telling people the world is stacked against them (it's true, but for almost everyone) and that trying is a waste (it isn't) is a huge mistake. Citing your skin color for success or failure is simply a crutch.

Do 4 things, consistently leads to above average outcomes, on average because most people can't do those four things. Life does not have guarantees but it does reward good choices over time.

See Poker (and not sports betting) for example. Also, Poker doesn't care what color your skin is.

Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

You'd be amazed at how little effect firing execs actually has over the option of firing a bunch of low level worker bees .

Fire 1 exec for 12 Million salary
OR
Layoff 250 worker bees and save 25 million in salary expenses .

Nobody cares about workers at the level where these decisions are made.

Filed Under: "One is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" - Stalin (allegedly)

+5 insightful analysis (I speak as a proud American of Indian origin who just got caught in the Indigo sh*tstorm, but would've agreed about this societal artifact even otherwise).

no problem.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.

And?

"even one time"

Unless you never use a password, in which case, you log in via all the other available options BUT password. You don't notice it missing. Passwords are so 1980s, get with the program.

I don't use biometrics because .. lets just say they are their own version of compromised. You cannot be compelled to give up your Password (legally) (hammer method is still valid) but a fingerprint, face ID etc that doesn't require you to speak can be compelled. I have no idea why people think it is "more secure" to use biometrics.

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

That's what I just said.