Does the food stamp office not register you, but instead sell your information to the democratic party and its affiliates? Or do they register you to vote? Because this wouldn't be an issue if the America PAC was actually registering voters to vote in every state they collected voter data from. There's nothing illegal about a PAC collecting voter data as part of a voter registration drive so long as the PAC provides the promised service.
This fixes some of the issues. But more industries are horizontally integrated monopolies, rather than government enforced ones. In the move toward a an authoritarian oligarchy and the move to divest powers not being concentrated in the executive, government enforced monopolies will give way to government accepted monopolies, where consolidation has lead to monopolies that need no government enforcement. Surviving regulation will exist to prevent competition (as we see with many social media regualting bills today) Long term, shift public policy to no longer prefer rent seeking. Tax burden investment and other forms of passive income. Tax incentivize self-sustainability
The policy decisions that lead to CEOS putting short term growth over long term value are not immutable.
Yes, Dividends, which traditionally pay out over long periods as passive income, prioritize short term gains over long term growth, As opposed to modern shareholders whose focus on shifts in quarterly earnings to divine stock price as their only return comes from a stock sale - wither to another private party or in a stock buyback, who are well known for their willingness to take a hit this quarter if it means better dividends in 5 years. History also expresses that a focus on quarterly stock price that directly impacts CEO pay doesn't put a focus on short term gains rather than a focus on long term growth to support dividends. If you can't tell, my position about the recent history of short-term decision making is extracted from dividends, and entirely derived from a focus on stock price and ROI being expected from stock sales prioritizes long term growth. A policy shift that advantages dividends and long-term holding of investments isn't likely to accelerate short term profit seeking
The Top insightful comment doesn't appear to link to the public display of the comment or article in question. It links to a you do not have access wordpress page.
Was the point here not an accusation of Brendon Carr's complicity in Brendon Carr's accusation of harassment of Elon Musk? Its a pretty short post. I'd love to hear the point that went over my head.
Brendon Carr is 'a' commissioner. He is not 'The' FCC commissioner. The FCC is currently staffed by 3 Dem commissioners, and 2 Republican commissioners. Brendon Carr is in the ideological minority, and expressing his distaste with the actions of the political majority, who can act without his buy-in. By making this statement, Carr expresses that he is not complicit in the actions of the current FCC, but rather impotent to affect FCC policy while in the minority. Hes also a garbage human being, if my feelings on him matter to you.
Go to the top of any subreddit. Click sort by new. Boom. Chronological feed. you can even do it with r/all. They wouldn't be able to insert recommended posts easily, but I see that as a win.
Fiscal incentives have changed. NYT doesn't need to get paid by a third party to run nonsense - the profit motive means the NYT gets paid by its readers to run nonsense. Investigation could only make this story less salacious and therefore draw fewer eyeballs. The thinly veiled racism of the NYT leadership ate this up, so they certainly weren't going to recommend doing any additional research. That would cost money that isn't going to make the article more popular.
Pulls out soapbox Intelligence tests do not test a general "intelligence quotient". They test existing knowledge and skill in western style academic test taking. "Smart" criminals in this context have "street smarts". They recognize the game and see where the chips will lie. They might not be able to sit down and eloquently pontificate on the philosophical underpinnings, but they can walk into a space, read the room, and know if shits about to go down. This idea that smart is a black or white measure that can be tested for is flaming rotting garbage.
Journalists need to stop talking to the Steve Jobs and start talking to the Woz instead. Musk has at least one for each marginal success. If we stopped listening to Musk and started listening to the actual rocketry expert Musk has, a guy so in the background I couldn't tell you his name anymore, I'd probably not shit on spaceX anywhere near as hard, because the reality is actually cool, its just trashed by pie-in-the-sky wish-and-a-prayer promises by Musk.
Home video has been the dominant movie watching experience ever since just after Betamax was declared the boston strangler of the movie industry. Historically, almost no one has been watching movies on 100+ inch screens, and even fewer for television. That market just isn't there. Hell, home video got popular when 19" screens were common. By your standard, Quality films have been niche for half a century, and quality TV has always been niche. "becoming" niche. ffs.
The public. The taxpayer. Everyone who isn't a cop. Its a policy arguement tailored to those who care about fiscal responsibility. Shift the wording to highlight the meaning I think you should try to read - the settlement shows why its a bad idea that cops harass filming bystanders. They had gotten away with the beating without cost, but the attempt to cover up the beating cost the taxpayer more money.
for the less obtuse: I was a conservative by upbringing, and it took until I was about 25 for exposure therapy (aka being in the real world) to develop a properly flexible perspective. I learned empathy, because humans have emotions and Empathy is the application of emotional intelligence. You can absolutely teach empathy. Its a long process. Much like turning a racist, Its not easy or simple. You are teaching a worldview. You can't teach empathy to a computer because a computer has no emotions and therefore no emotional intelligence. It is perfectly logical.
I am of the opinion AI must have been created 38 years ago, because it took until 2010 before they installed the empathy simulation chip in my white US american robot brain. I imagine thats why I was treated with empathy, prioritizing my health over profit, from smaller providers in years past before Kaiser got control. Obviously they needed to train that empathy chip. Perhaps they were all AI?
Im an accountant. And aside from categorization tools which questionably use the term 'AI' and had for years before LLMs sprung into existence, programming (c++ and java as a hobby, and excel formulas professionally) is where I find AI super valuable. How do I use this function in practice? (give me an example of X) What function(s) can do what I need? (how can I accomplish X) What is this function actually doing? I spend far less time in obtuse documentation and far more getting the actual work done.
Time exists. Because time exists, previous claims made by gary have since been retracted. Timothy claims to have already had this article written and in the queue at 6:45am PDT. According to twitter, gary tweeted the confirmation it was Nintendo at 7:21am PDT. This was opinion on breaking news. New information has come out since it was written.
Are you claiming that communications were not regulated under title II of the Federal communications act? Are you trying to claim my isp does not transmit data from a server to my home? What, and i must emphizise this, the FUCK am I paying them for than?
Around the same time that making bad faith reads of the Lawsuits & Lawyers Handbook stops getting nothing more than exasperated sighs from the Law Daddy.
The original arbitrary change was to reclassify Broadband as a Title I information service after originally being classified as a title II telecommunications provider like dial up before it. This change arbitrarily determined that by bundling information services with weaker regulation, like DNS, with telecommunications services that should have stronger regulation like broadband, ISPs could nullify the stronger regulatory protections of title II and only operate under the weaker protections of title I. Net neutrality is a policy of applying as little of the Title II regulation as possible to achieve state regulatory aims with narrow targeted regulation as opposed to blindly applying Title II. The question is not what is the law. The question is about categorization. And as you may know, a featherless chicken is a human. Which is to say, if you don't get the reference, actually creating unambiguous buckets for categorization is not something the real world is good for. There is no writing a law so fullproof in its language you can not twist the letter of the law. Under your standard, no law could be passed, because what is telecommunications can never be defined so tightly as to not be subject to challenge, which by your standard makes such a law impossible. But Title II of the telecommunications act is a law. Its been legislated. It covers telecommunications services, which an ISP uncontestedly includes. Those services are classified under title II. This is not a dispute about what regulatory powers the law provides. This is a dispute of whether the presence of Title 1 services results in voiding the protection of Title II services, which appears contrary to the facial congressional intent of setting up such a two-tiered regulatory system.