I think there are (at least) two different distinctions at work; rather than a direct opposition between 'buzzwords' and 'jargon' at the level you describe.

Both are jargons for the purposes of being nonstandard or very locally standardized usages within a particular group; but when people say 'buzzwords' there's a specific pejorative implication, while 'jargon' is usually implied to be legitimate and useful at least within its subject area.

Obviously legitimacy claims, rather than linguistic ones, make the boundary a bit fuzzy; but there are some tells. A jargon term(in the positive/legitimate sense) tends to go places: if someone doing analog signal processing says 'bandwidth' it may confuse ribbon enthusiasts; but it touches on a whole bunch of related concepts: bands have widths and 'wideband' and 'narrowband' are what they sound like they would be; bandpass and bandgap filters do frequency dependent attenuation in ways that either allow a particular band through or heavily attenuate a particular band. When a project manager says 'bandwidth' they mostly just mean ability to do work, with a slight extension available to say you are too busy if you don't want to say you are too busy "I don't have the bandwidth/the team doesn't have the bandwidth". If you try to extend the concept; by, say, combining the 'bandwidth' of two people you end up with The Mythical Man-Month rather than the link aggregation or NIC teaming that you'd get if you told the networking guy that you needed to eliminate a bottleneck. That's what really marks the example phrase as 'buzzword'. You've got a metaphor drawn from baseball that barely even makes sense in the context of the sport(people only 'touch base' if the timings on opposing teams are particularly tight); then 'offline' is at least meaningful in the context that it is drawn from; but actually kind of confusing in context(are you taking it offline because it doesn't need to be handled synchronously or by everyone in the meeting? Because you don't want it on the record? Because it doesn't require drawing on the connected resources it would have if it were online?), then you've got 'align', which is vague at best misleading at worst(is 'aligning your bandwidth' working on the same things, specifically avoiding overlap? some of both?).

That's really, beyond more or less subjective judgements that engineering and science are more respectable than suit stuff, what makes 'buzzwords' feel slimy. Unlike 'jargon', which can be obscure to the layman but tends to have lots of internal connections that are consistent and enlightening; 'buzzwords' tend to be a lot of relatively surface-level borrowings that lack internal implications and which range from merely not-illuminating to actively obfuscating.

Linguistically both are jargons in the sense of being specialized local vocabularies; but 'buzzword' tends to imply little or no useful internal consistency; more or less ad-hoc borrowing of shiny-sounding words from random places; while 'jargons' in the 'respectable' sense are quite often cryptic on the surface; but have relatively massive bodies of internal consistency within the jargon. "Touch base" is practically plain english compared to what a mathematician or a physicist means when they say "field" vs. what a farmer or someone with a lawn in the suburbs means; but it's also shallow: there's nothing illuminating about the implied analogy to baseball, there aren't any additional things to be inferred from the idea that the people touching base are members of opposing teams trying to reach the base first(indeed, that's probably actively misleading); while 'field' as the set with specific operators defined is a little esoteric; but there are large areas of math that use, and in some cases flow from, that definition.

Judas Priest was sued in 1990 because the parents claimed the band had planted suicidal messages in one of their songs that led to a suicide pact.

Angry grieving parents will often lash out at a convenient external cause, in part so that they don't have to face the reality that the odds are more likely they were an agent in the suicide.

Just for the sake of technical correctness; paying for foreign expertise with imperial extraction is a technology. It's over in the pointy section of political science; and going by the number of people who end up dead or in exile after a failed implementation, it's not a trivial matter.

One of the tricky bits, potentially one that they've had trouble with of late, is that pulling it off effectively usually means pretending that that isn't what you are doing, for the legitimacy and prestige, while keeping in mind that that is what you are doing, for realistic planning purposes. It's all well and good for foreigners and low-level patriots to think of 'Russia' and 'the USSR' as essentially synonyms; significantly less helpful if your military or economic planners even periodically lose sight of the fact that that's a handy aspirational position rather than a truth.

When will people marry his declarations and musings with the fact that he's marching Federally-controlled troops into cities to "fight crime". What the hell does everyone think is going to happen in next year's mid-terms when armed forces loyal specifically to Trump with little or no objection from Congress or the Supreme Court starting "guarantee" a "fair vote".

Everything he and the Republicans have been working towards since the claims of Obama's ineligibility has been preparing for the moment when they move in to seize control of state voting apparatus. He'll do what he's done with everything else and claim it's a "national emergency."

And MAGA will cheer while the Democrats put on their sackcloths and roll around in the dust crying about how they were impotent. The American people have chosen, they want tyrants who rule by fiat, engineer and weaponize crises to entrench their power.

The political system the Framers came up with was always a steaming pile of crap. Bagehot pulled apart deftly in the 1860s, explaining that the only thing that made it work was the "American genius for politics". Well, that's done. The Democrats are frozen in place, the Republicans, ruled by oil barons and sociopathic billionaires, intend on building a dictatorship with the shape of the American republic, but where checks and balances once existed, will be impotent paper tigers.

It's too much money and too much privilege. The billionaires really do think they're superior lifeforms that should receive automatic deference, and when they collide with reality, they show their true nature; emotionally stunted children.

Do I really need to point out how hysterical you sound? Applying the burden of proof and standards of evidence of criminal court to a free association question? Really?

That's basically treating the possibility that someone might not want to go on a date with you as in the same category as the state laying criminal charges against you; which is lunatic tier.

Obviously, anyone treating internet hearsay as particularly reliable is about as sensible as someone who believes online product reviews; but both of those groups are an order of magnitude, or more, less wrong than someone who thinks that internet hearsay or online product reviews need to be on a beyond reasonable doubt basis with FRE and an appeals process and stuff.

It's a dating safety app for women. I think we can guess who used the hacked data to dox women, and the kind of people that justify that.

You actually make a reasonably convincing argument for the idea that the republican party does have principles; they just overlap pretty weakly with the ones they pretend at.

The most striking break with history is the bit where Nixon-level criminality used to be politically problematic.

The first stage of the revolution is to keep a cordial relationship with the Mensheviks. We're all on the same team. We're hear to overthrow that rotting edifice of the old order and create a stronger, better society, with a government truly representative of the people. We're all a big tent, and can accommodate differences of opinion.

The second stage of the revolution requires the sidelining of the Mensheviks. Yes, they have their objections, but those objections are mainly spurious, perhaps a little too influenced by moderate opinions. It's understandable, revolutions have casualties, and not everyone has the stomach for the hard fight. Objections will be duly noted and recorded.

The third stage of the revolution requires the expulsion of the Mensheviks. They've become too influenced by counterrevolutionary ideas. The middle ground they try to occupy is the path back to the old order. The revolution cannot afford these divisions, the people must see unity lest they question the revolution. Show the counterrevolutionaries the door, we no longer recognize their standing.

The fourth stage requires the destruction of the Mensheviks. It is not enough that they have been rendered impotent, they are traitors to the revolution, and like the moderates, in the hands of the old order. Some, maybe, can be rehabilitated, others must face more severe punishments. We owe to the people to destroy those who would undo our accomplishments.

The fifth stage has no memory of the Mensheviks at all.

I think you need to provide your operating definitions for "socialism" and "communism".

Rather ironic that the real Communists are the Republicans.

Really, if that's the way you want to live, I say have at it. Other people having the option to live differently isn't going to stop you. It'll be decades before it starts getting hard to find gas stations, and by then EVs will have more range than you can handle.

It is pretty hard not to respond to the pure BS that anti-EV types spout. I know it rubs you the wrong way, but the alternative is to let people who don't know what they're talking about dominate public perceptions.

I wouldn't claim EVs are for everyone, but for many of us they are extremely convenient and economical to run. The corner cases where ICE is clearly more convenient are not a concern for everyone, and not a concern for a multi-car household considering making one of their cars an EV. We have an EV and a plug-in hybrid that runs as an EV probably 80% of the time. We hit the gas station with the plug-in about once every six weeks.

You probably don't have to imagine 25% tax; that's right around the "government revenue (% of GDP)" value for the US; though it does seem kind of wild to see something as regressive as what's basically a sales tax cranked that high unless the product in question is specifically being discouraged; which is clearly not the intent here or we wouldn't be commenting on this article.

I heard an economist pose this question once. Why do companies have employees at all? Why not use contractors? Then you could hire just as much labor as you need, when you need it, then not pay for labor when you didn't need it.

His reason was the costs involved with finding contractors then negotiating agreements with them. I think there are other reasons, but for sure that's part of it.

But I think technology is pushing us into an intermediate position between the semi-permanent, often lifelong employment of a generation ago, and a world of contracting for everything. I think this is evidenced by a pattern I have seen where companies who are currently successful lay people off. It's not just in the tech world, this is happening in the service industry too.

When technology allows you to monitor the financial performance and cost of every department in an enterprise down to a fare-thee-well, it's easy to identify people you don't need so much in the upcoming quarters and let them go. Then with Internet hiring and automated application screening it's easy to hire those positions back in a year.

Now there's a lot of holes in this rosy (for management) scenario. Automated application screening is dog shit, for example. But you can do it, and you will find people; probably not the *best* people, but then you'll never know, in fact *nobody* will ever know. People will never get to know their jobs well, but again you won't ever know what you're missing. Most of all you will never have anything resembling loyalty from the people you hire; young people these days look at every job as transient. But you can't *measure* loyalty and in most cases, job competence with any precision. But you can track costs down to the penny.