Forgot to mention LIV Golf, founded in 2021, financed by Saudi Arabia. So that's "influence", if you like.

Hm. "Quietly making inroads". Have you heard of this commodity called "oil"? Seems to me it's been influential for a while now. Maybe gaining influence in sports. The main sport that comes to mind is polo, very popular in Arab countries for a few centuries. There's even a breed of horse called the Arabian.

Again: oil. I notice you don't provide any actual examples, nor any evidence that this is new.

And, yeah, it is kind of racist to imply that all Arabs are the same. The Palestinians don't have any influence; they couldn't even get one person on stage at the Democratic National Convention. Not to mention that Jared Kushner is involved in both this story about EA and the "peace" plan for permanent oppression the Palestinians had no voice in.

I don't know how you searched; for me, it's on the front page of ITVX, which is the first result I get from a Google search for itvx: Space Live. Requires registration with an email address. I stopped there. I'm not looking to add any more subscriptions or registrations.

I believe Sturgeon's Revelation applies: 90% of everything is crap. Personally, I extend this further: 90% of everything is 100% crap; and the remaining 10% is 90% crap.

Retrieval-augmented generation is one way to do this.

Also, IN SOME CASES, if you don't like the answer you got, it's because you asked the wrong question.

"This genius" suggests an individual, but the article actually says, "Dodd’s team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory had actually spotted the error in the command and corrected it -- but then mistakenly sent out the flawed version."

And, you know, let they who have never made a mistake throw the first metaphorical stone, and all that.

Spoiler: Black Mirror episode in which soldiers have neural implants providing augmented reality. Or, rather, altered reality.

Did someone accidentally load the Hebrew spelling dictionary?

This is a matter of debate among actual historians and constitutional scholars and surely will not be resolved here, but the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you, in District of Columbia v. Heller : "It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms -- unconnected with service in a militia -- for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home"; and in McDonald v. City of Chicago , the Court ruled that "the right of an individual to 'keep and bear arms', as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states." Agree or disagree, this is established law at present in the US. The Supreme Court has always left the door open to gun "regulation" but has never explicitly defined the limits.

For more background, see The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People, or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, by Stephen P Halbrook (2021). The author is clearly biased in favor of individual ownership of firearms, but the scholarship is first-rate and comprehensive, covering arguments and legislation on both sides.

So, some time after "Real Soon Now" but maybe before "Never".

That might be true, or it might be that particular person was just trying to discourage you, or was testing to find out whether you'd be discouraged. In case anybody wants my advice for some reason, I would say, to the extent that people are just saying things, try to ignore it, avoid them and try to find people who will build you up instead of tearing you down. Everybody wants to feel superior to somebody, Some try to do that by making themselves bigger, and some do it by trying to make others smaller.

It's worse if they have control over your income or some other power over you. To anyone in that situation, all I can say is try to get out and find a place where you're appreciated, if you can. Don't expect anyone else to change.

"I wouldn't buy you a college education."

I probably wouldn't pay the entire cost of your college education either. I might give you a loan if I thought it was a good risk. Or I would be willing to pay part of the cost of your education. I happen to feel that education in valuable in both philosophical and practical respects, even if the direct financial benefits are not easy to quantify. I believe at one time this was assumed to be true.

In the US, the legislators make laws which everyone, in principle, is required to obey. The legislators are elected by voters. Is it better to have ignorant voters or educated voters? Is it possible you might derive both practical and financial benefits from educated voters? I've had formal education in logical reasoning, logical fallacies, propaganda techniques (including advertising), and various types of decision-making. I believe this has improved my ability to make decisions, which benefits me and indirectly benefits society. So society has a stake in education, even beyond purely job-related education.

Do you believe that education is just indoctrination? Or that it should be nothing but job training? Or is it possible that you might derive some benefits from a more-educated population? If the latter, how much would you pay for everyone's education?

I already pay quite a lot in taxes to educate other people's children. I'm not given a choice. Is that morally wrong? Are you only opposed to paying for university education, or also K-through-12 education?

I have pondered this, but I still have absolutely no idea what that means. How did they check your weaknesses? I could guess, gut I might just go off in the wrong direction.

And I bet the cats were underage and didn't give consent.

I did not know that. Thanks for the information. Jain vegetarianism: "The Jain cuisine is completely lacto-vegetarian and excludes root and underground vegetables such as potato, garlic, and onion to prevent injuring small insects and microorganisms. Other vegetables that have a higher chance of containing small organisms such as cauliflower, eggplant, mushroom and broccoli are also not consumed. The diet is associated with practices that aim to minimise harm to plants, such as avoiding the uprooting of entire plants during harvest. ... The objections to the eating of meat, fish and eggs are based on the principle of non-violence (ahimsa) ....

I'm not clear on who is injured by eating eggs, at least non-fertilized eggs.

I can't say I'm necessarily opposed to the injuring of microorganisms, especially since my body does that constantly whether I like it or not. (I like it.) I also kill mosquitoes and roaches whenever I get the chance. I accept that karmic burden.