Sunday school is not a public institution, which is why it gets a pass. Similarly private schools are free to do this all week long.
I think even this supreme Court would rule the correct way. I wouldn't be surprised if it were even unanimous, but at worst I'd expect the 6/3 split with Thomas, Goraych, and Alito. There's only so far they can go when the Constitution was very blatantly clear on this matter.
This is my thought. I could imagine Biden announcing that Obama was coming in to play a very key role in his administration and that might give him a boost. That while technically the buck stops with Biden still, that Obama is very close to contribute.
This would sidestep the "annointed one" problem, avoid skipping the primary, and while it's short of a new candidate, it gets a very popular person near the presidency who couldn't have been the candidate.
I couldn't imagine them starting from scratch at this point, couldn't imagine who they would pick that people would already resonate with.
I'll agree, but he was at the same time more bold, like saying everyone wanted to overturn Roe v Wade. Confident and competent lying can get you far, but if you lie about how the people watching would feel, you undermine all your other lying.
There are few things more maddening than claiming you know how someone feels more than they themselves do. A very credible liar can be undone if they lie that well on a matter the audience personally knows better. Suddenly all the benefit of the doubt purchased by the confidence is erased.
I was thinking the debate rules actually saved Trump from his worst impulses. Biden was allowed to speak at full length and Trump gets to appear like he can participate in a civilized conversation while Biden would sometimes go off the rails while trying to fill his time. A lot of his embarrassments started in a decent place, but pivoted badly in the middle.
Trump confidently lied repeatedly without consequences, and so long as someone is unaware that it's lies, I could imagine them finding Trump's rhetoric credible that night.
I suppose that would make sense. Trump doubled down on tax cuts for the wealthy and burning the hell out of fossil fuels. So even if someone were oblivious to his lying, and Trump was able to "perform" more confidently, the end result were policies with grave implications. Also, on the one weak point with progressives, falling to protect Palestinians, Trump's criticism was that Biden wasn't pro Israel hard enough...
Given the timing that nearly all the primaries are done, his replacement would necessarily be someone no one even has the chance to vote on. This is a tremendous risk.
However, if he announced someone like "announcing my new chief of staff: Obama"...
Yeah, that's a grandmother, so what?
Just have a bookshelf behind you during the interview, you'll be golden.
Or maybe have the oval office as a backdrop, that might really make you qualified.
Nice... Wait a minute...
I'm guessing they have a job like mine, where a driving trip is a relatively rare occurrence and micromanaging the travel isn't worth it to mitigate the risk of paying out a little more.
Finally, my life-sized hotwheels car can have a suitable route.
Another interesting thing to consider.
To be clear, he is rich. But he's not crazy crazy rich, like nowhere near billionaire status.
With that in mind, his kernel is a key component of RedHat's, SuSE's and Canonical whole business, with at least two of those being multi billion dollar businesses.
His kernel is a key component of Android phones, which represent over 50 billion a year in hardware spend, and a bunch of software money on top of that.
His kernel is foundational to most hosting/cloud services with just mind blowing billions of revenue quarterly.
It's used in almost every embedded device on the planet, networking gear, set top boxes, thermostats, televisions, just nearly everything.
People with a fraction of that sort of relevance are billionaires several times over. A number of billionaires owe much of their success to him. Yet he is not among their numbers.
Now there's more to things than just a kernel to be sure, but across the hundreds of billions of dollars made while running Linux, there was probably plenty of room for him to carve out a few billion for himself were he that sort of person, but he cares about the work more than gaming the dollars. I have a great deal of respect for that.
Means that while he may not always be right, but I at least believe his assessments are sincere and not trying to drive some grift or cover some insecurity about being left behind.
Sadly, there often comes a time when a critical mass of the business leaders decide "you know what, I want to cash out and no matter how disastrous this will be long term, I think short term this will milk some revenue out of some captive audience".
In the IT industry, that time is usually when Broadcom buys you.
We had a big mandatory meeting where an executive came in to tell us all to be happy we weren't getting our bonuses or pay raises, and used a weird analogy about poor people being perfectly happy, because they have realistic expectations and that's all you need to be happy.
He then had to leave early, as he quipped he was sharing a ride with a fellow executive on the private jet, and if he didn't leave right then, he'd have to suffer flying commercial.
I've been sick of him from the first moment I met an adherent. I mentioned how I like to avoid debt and pay it down early and the person said "Oh, so you listen to Dave Ramsey?" I confessed to having no idea who they were talking about, and they swore that I was being obtuse because I couldn't have come up with "interest sucks" on my own.
A company offered me a million dollars to work for them, but then I remembered the ping pong table at my current employer and said no way. Totally worth it.
Also, the whole reason he's complaining about comedy being destroyed is that he hasn't been relevant in over 25 years. So even ignoring everything, he's some boring old dude that hasn't been that relevant the entire life of most of the graduates. They selected someone that the staff might be impressed by, but not someone that is vaguely interesting for the actual graduates.
To offer my trivial little analysis:
The GOP has happily made themselves into the Trumpism party even in elections where Trump isn't even running.
Those hard core Trump supporters are only interested in Trump himself (just like Trump is only interested in himself), and aren't as likely to bother if he isn't personally involved. To all but the Trump die hards, Trump is odious and that stink has rubbed off to make his detractors very active to fight the GOP at large.
I fear that next year Trump will bolster GOP votes with his fanatics.
What's up with all these washed up celebrities coming back to the spotlight just to make an ass of themselves?
An anecdote that both supports your perspective and offers an alternative explanation.
My father in law kept falling for the same scam. Something about straightening out his credit card billing for some service he never ordered. But the scammer needed his information to access the online account, but he didn't have that even set up, so he'd hang up, call his credit card company, and try to complain to them about a problem that didn't exist.
Another scam about paying balances he didn't have would result in him mailing checks to his regular credit card company, who would just credit his account to negative balance and it would work out fine.
He'd generally never even recognize it as a scam, even when flat out told by his family or the credit card company.
So his gullible nature was largely cancelled out by not dealing with this online stuff, which is a critical component of how the scams tend to work.
When millennials were kids, the adults were so fascinated with their aptitude for messing with obscure DOS settings to get their games to run or programming VCRs, that the media did the tech whiz kid trope constantly (e.g. Star Trek, SeaQuest, Hackers, etc, etc). Having to deal with early electronics with arcane interfaces and fickle behavior forced them to have a comprehensive understanding.
The generation that grew up with more point and click experiences did not inspire that same "holy crap, the kids understand this really hard to use technology" and the trope in media died out. They were not forced to understand the workings of the technology to enjoy it.
Similar for cars, people who owned cars in early days pretty much had to understand the nitty gritty, because they'd screw up so often and on the road with little recourse to call for help. Nowadays people largely don't know how their cars work, because they are more reliable and even if they have a problem on the road, they have a phone in their pocket to get professional help immediately.
Most countries do not do this. In fact, from what I have seen the Internet lines to talk about how bad the economy is, even when it seems to be doing well. There's always someone pushing the negative spin on economic news.
China is one of a very few that blocks and takes down Internet content for merely disagreeing with their message.
Always hated this expectation.
Particularly outrageous scenario 20 years ago, I was just getting started and was basically a limited hour part time employee making a bit more than minimum wage, but the office culture was dominated by people well into six figure salary. So they would act all shocked when us lowly folks would tend to decline when they said everyone needed to go to a $100 a plate for an after-work dinner (of course the company wouldn't pay for any of this, but who doesn't have the spare money to piss away $100 for a plate of food with colleagues every couple of weeks?)
We have a largeish number of systems that IT declared catheorically could not connect directly to the Internet for any reason.
So guess what systems weren't getting updates. Also guess what systems got overwhelmed by ransomware that hit what would have been a patched vulnerability, that came through someone's laptop that was allowed to connect to the Internet.
My department was fine, because we broke the rules to get updates.
So did network team admit the flaw in their strategy? No, they declared a USB key must have been the culprit and they literally went into every room and confiscated all USB keys and threw them away, with quarterly audits to make sure no USB keys appear. The systems are still not being updated and laptops with Internet connection are still indirectly bridging them.
It used to be open, then money happened.
Yeah, in the mid 90s the world was so optimistic about Russia, and frankly reassured about the nukes going to Russia, which was believed to be the more confidently governed nation state.
Everyone was still riding high on the cold war seemingly coming to a close.
Broadly, I wonder if these folks have no memory for how they were regarded.
The silent generation was broadly characterized as all being lazy beatniks.
The boomers were all characterized as being lazy hippies.
Of course gen xers, millennials, and z have all had their turn.
Every generation broadly bemoans the laziness of the young generation. I recall reading someone who sampled media going back to 19th century, repeatedly finding the "young folks are lazy" rhetoric that is always present.
Perhaps, but the point stands that the specific thing called "Tesla" was founded by these guys, and Musk went through quite some headaches to be retconned as a founder of that thing, so it's on point to drive it home that he wasn't even that.
Fair point that "Tesla" isn't really the great brains behind the original core tech, but that's not the feather in the cap that Musk was going for, so it's a bit moot toward the end of undermining his status of "founder" of Tesla.
To run as a Democrat in ND is to automatically lose. The portion of the electorate that will refuse to look beyond the team sports identity is so huge, if you actually want to participate, you have to technically be a member of the correct "team".
Lot of politicians suffer from amnesia, especially if they are in a hearing.
Total Recall? Get your ass to Linux!
Well, it should be utterly impossible to retroactively alter the terms of an agreement once agreed upon. This just gave some wiggle room that within a given calendar year, you don't have to think too hard about the agreement as it can't change (unless you want) on you even in updates within a year.
It seems to be a pretty reasonable clause to assuage customers that while technically the terms are a living document, they can actually plan their business around the product. Giving the supplier the flexibility they want, while promising the customer the stability they may require.
There's a significant online population so frustrated with Biden's support of Israel in the face of the Gaza invasion, they have declared they want Biden to lose.
Unfortunately, as this exemplifies, the GOP is at least as bad as Biden on this front. So "punishing" Biden doesn't do anything at all for the plight of the Palestinians.
To be fair, we saw formerly what Apple without jobs did, it was a failure. So one might wonder when the new Apple might run out. The catch being that the iPhone, app store, and iTunes are all indefinite money machines, except maybe iPhone one day. So they had a steak of ever increasingly wildly successful products that culminated in the iPhone and then no mind blowing follow-up, but they don't need one. Folks may like the narrative that Jobs death coincided with their last big product category though
We also saw Jobs without Apple, also pretty much a failure.
Vaccines are not 100% effective
Ah ha, so vaccines aren't effective! /s
We referred to the dotcom bubble as the dotcom bubble, but that didn't mean that the web went away, it just meant that companies randomly tried stuff and had money thrown at them because the investors had no idea either.
So same here, AI bubble because it's being randomly attempted without particular vision with lots and lots of money, not because the technology fundamentally is a bust.
It's amazing how often I see executives talking about their cool trip, their new plane, or other rich person bullshit during the same presentation where they are telling their employees to suck up some furlough, reneg on bonus, or similar financial hardship.
I mean if you read some of what his first wife wrote, he was pretty much this bad. Though at the time she was saying it the world didn't want to hear it. He also did the whole retcon Tesla to be founded by him over 15 years ago, in some pretty petty behavior. When x.com failed relative to PayPal, he somehow managed to get them to merge and make him the head of PayPal, and then they kicked him down when we almost tanked PayPal.
It basically seems that a critical mass of people were covering for him and propping up the brand of his name and image, likely for the sake of their investments. Which should be a fairly familiar story, because 80s Trump had the same things going on, very bad business results glossed over by investors needing to keep the Trump brand strong for the sake of their own money. Both trump and musk successfully tied up some big business fate with their names specifically, forcing investors to play into the conceit.
They do, to a point.
If it's a "trim" that is a vague percentage without any standout cuts in recognized people or groups, then good. If there are recognized names or groups, but they are people associated with widely known failures, like a team whose sole responsibility is a proven financial failure, good or even better. If you have people caught up in it who are well recognized for critical successes, then the investors won't be so bullish.
Here we see two groups seen as responsible for the key success factors of Tesla obliterated, with very little external signs of why this could be a rational move. The other layoffs might have been viewed well, even if some of them were also bad news, but I think these two will be viewed as bad news.
Also, this may be seen as a missed opportunity. Tesla established SC network as the premiere EV charging solution, and made it credibly cover other manufacturers, setting it up as independently valuable with it without Tesala. Tesla ditched the entire team, putting that at risk and taking on expenses to let go of those people for long term salary savings. A different business might have sold off the group intact, not only avoiding severance expense, but also getting a big check in the process from some other company. Keeping the "business" with none of the actual people is a bizarre move.
Perhaps an oversimplification, but I'd say it's the one point that progressives are so pissed that they would tend to forget that the other likely choice would rather see more genocide. On other points I'd say progressives may wish for better, but are willing to be more pragmatic for now.