These are all equivalent statements. Make the operator responsible for their contribution, regardless of what tool is used. Good contributors will use tools that are effective. Ineffective tools will either improve, or be discarded. The standards do not change if the contributor used an IDE, or a static analysis tool, or an AI, or a fuzzer, or StackOverflow, or their best friend, or 1000 monkeys at 1000 keyboards.

Well the inflation numbers are out now (10/24) and they only just barely above 2%. It is almost like your assumptions were and are wrong or something....

So in the real world - Space X has actually received about half of what you claim, and what they have received is because they have delivered on what they were contracted to do. - So awful..

Meanwhile our so-called-allies in the EU are going to try to undercut another successful American technology enterprise by allowing their state subsidized aerospace operators to collude. - Fine, that is probably the right policy choice for them; but we should stop pretending the EU is 'friendly' and treat them like the 'frenemies' they actually are. We definitely should stop subsidizing their defense.

Right all those people enabling the rich to get richer by paying for work well below market rate. While the politicians the wealthy overwhelmingly support out side of notable Billionaires, get a crop of new voters when those people have children. Voters who are utterly dependent on them and entirely free of any commitment to our national cultural heritage.

All those SS and medicare contributions, won't mean a thing because those programs are STILL demographically upside down even with them. Not to mention they really only help once again the already very wealthy pay people less than real cost of living for their labor - it is literally just more wealth transfer. We don't have the problem of 1930 anymore, we don't need older workers to retire to make room for younger more productive bodies; we have almost the opposite problem!

Take care of you in your dotage, you should have actually contributed to society and had some children if that is your concern.

Mass immigration does nothing but pour gasoline on social stratification. Even if it does enable growth, this has always been true, it was true in gilded age it is true now. The US does not really have a wealth and productivity problem right now. If we did immigration might be a sensible policy, we do have social stratification problem, so the correct policy choice is clearly to reduce immigration.

The person that needs to grow brain or at least us it, can be found in your nearest mirror. This nation's problems are because an entire generation can't let go of the dogma of 1960. Either they grew up in the 1960s or the got 'educated' by people who did and they can't or won't see the landscape has changed.

GDP impact is a fine measure for looking at the impact of some narrow policy choices, but people continue to act like it strongly correlates with mean-individual well being. It hasn't for a long time, but generations of economists can't let go of theories developed by Great Depression survivors, who at the time were right about "Bro You gotta pump them top line numbers" we are not there today.

Though, you might think, there's a reason we don't count votes that were not cast. Ignoring the reality that the Electoral College actually elected the President/Vice President, the popular vote isn't decisive. It's interesting, yes. Participation in the US is not nearly as high as I would like, but I can't get a good read on what world change if participation increased, say, 30%. Consequently, it's easy to believe most complaints about participation and the popular vote are the stuff of Democrat angst. Yet I'm not at all certain that increased participation would favor one party more than the other. Polls on this topic aren't any more reliable than any others.

"1st, no illegal aliens voted."

You, it appears, have access to evidence not available to others. I am in awe.

"

I can find no record of a US president gaining 2/3 of the popular vote, other than George Washington. In fact, in modern times, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon each got 61 or 60% of the vote. You're asking for something that's never been. What's your point?

So how many people has he actually plowed into? I am guessing none? right?

So the reality, all those people where correct, their much nicer car than he can afford on a bus driver salary, is more than capable of accelerating and getting out of the way before he collides with them.

It not surprising they have better perception and judgement than he does, given they are not civil employees.

There are clearly identifiable victims, everyone else on or near the road who was endangered by you traveling beyond the socially agreed risk level.

Now who did Binance hurt? and how?

Yes, this.

I just got to my second Starbucks this morning on my e-bike. I use it to go to the gym, *bux, etc., usually 3 mile trips each way. It's ok, though I do risk harm with cars thinking I've usurped their space in the bike lane.

I take advantage of that to leave my Prius in the driveway, which Prius I bought to conserve on fuel use and downsize the vehicle a little.

Not because I'm noble. but because I do not need more. And focusing on need, not want, is not noble either. It's just responsible. I've never bought a new car, I've made straightforward repairs on the used cars I've driven over 50 years, mostly to avoid depreciation and the wasteful expense.

But I also do not begrudge anyone making different choices. There are much worse things going on than driving cars too much.

Not even

Under communism, once the decision is made to develop a resource, that is usually it. Anyone's objections reasonable or otherwise be damned.

At least under capitalism private ownership gives people some incentive to keep things they have 'nice' and resist policy that would deprive them of it, which they often successful can.

Look at the history of Russian Oil and gas, over the 20th century. Communism is most certainly NOT going to help the cause of saving the planet.

Ditto. :)

You could not be more wrong. But you're deluded, and convinced, so my response is actually not directed at you.

Really, you are wrong. You get cause and effect reversed in this instance.