It's just another example of the 'Approximate Spelling' technique. The parent poster is illustrating significant savings in mental energy.

Tesla's main problem right now is getting enough batteries to meet demand for the current lineup. They have no incentive to move to a lower profit per car model until they can supply the demand.

But this wasn't Knight mugging someone, this was Knight giving up the money by their own choice.

The people who were hurt were Knight's owners, which is an incentive for them to do a better job of oversight in the future.

I refer to the trading losses, not the fine.

They can, however, use all the powers of Pepsi to reveal who the tweeter was.

Actually, that may mean they can use all the powers of government.

On the contrary, as long as the regulations exist and are enforced, the hotels are perfectly happy to include the costs of satisfying the city that they are in compliance (whether by complying or otherwise) by increasing what they charge people to stay. The more regulations, the harder it is for someone to enter the market and compete with them. They (probably correctly) see AirBnb as a form of competition, and are happy to use the regulations as a club to pound on the competition with.

We haven't hit the debt ceiling yet, that's later. At that point, arguments about to whether things are "funded" that we're not authorized to borrow money for will be quite interesting. But this particular stopage is about the budget.

Right now, nothing is funded, as we've reached the end of the existing budget (such as it was).

I actually agree with your earlier first paragraph (and thus disagree with your conclusion)- I think that it would be very healthy to vote on different pieces of spending in much smaller pieces- and I don't think the House has gone far enough yet in breaking things up. I would have trimmed enough to make a difference. Stopping Obamacare would arguably be good for the economy, but it won't do much for the federal budget.

Nothing is funded until something is passed into law to spend more money.

I find your two paragraphs in disagreement with each other.

Instead of funding everything at once, the Republicans in the House passed a bill funding some things but not others, so that what is more generally agreed upon can continue to work while the rest would need its own separate spending authorization. From your first paragraph, this would seem to be a step in the right direction.

And yet, your second paragraph turns around criticizes the Republicans for NOT bundling all things. You suggest they should bundle everything then coming back later with a separate bill to remove some of them.

More like it took longer to get around to students unwise enough to reveal what they had done.

Personally, I want the resolution increase so that getting a monitor with that resolution becomes affordable. 1920x1080 is great for TV as TV, but I want more from a monitor, and if the higher resolution TVs catch on it won't be so hard to find a reasonable cost higher resolution monitor.

I find that taking very sparse notes, or none, depending on the subject, I will get more out of a lecture. As long as there is a good textbook or other reference I can use it to clarify confusions later. I find generally that when writing or typing, the info isn't being stored in my brain as well.

Of course, I often also find it helpful to have a book on an unrelated subject and to split my attention back and forth to it and the lecture to control my short attention span, so I'm weird.

One reason I had so many patents relatively early in my career is I wound up doing hardware design in a much different area than I had planned on in school. I did not know the normal way to do things. So I figured out ways to do things.
Sometimes I wound up doing stuff normally but it took longer, this was OK as a bit of a learning curve was expected (they hired me knowing I didn't know the area yet).
Sometimes I did things a bit less efficiently than ideal, though this was usually fixed in design reviews.
But sometimes I came up with something novel, and after checking with more experienced folks to make sure it was novel, patented it.

A decade later, I know how a way to do pretty much everything I need to do, and get a lot less patents. But I finish my designs a lot faster:).

You need people who don't know that something isn't possible to advance the state of the art, but you also need people who know the lessons of the past to get things done quickly.

Child labor- depending on some variables, children are sometimes better off doing child labor than starving. Slave labor I would be willing to boycott, voluntary labor (including where the parent is making the call instead of the child doing the work) is a much more gray area for me, and I'd want a better understanding of a given situation than that children were involved in the manufacture of a product to make a call there.

Diamonds- personally, I believe that synthetic are just as good as dug-from-the-ground, so stating that I am boycotting diamonds would be rather misleading.

Incidentally, I find it more offensive to demonize people (i.e. calling them homophobic because they disagree with you on whether the English language needs to be changed by government fiat), than anything I've seen Card say in the snippets I've seen people quote from him on the subject.

Well, I'm going to vote with my dollars that I think voting against this movie is not a net good. I am capable of enjoying products made by people that I disagree with, and don't want to discourage them from producing more. I felt the same way about Armikrog and contributed significantly more to the kickstarter than I would have if people hadn't tried to make creating a good game a political issue.

With Chick-Fil-A, enough people felt the same way that their profits increased rather than decreased from the boycott, and they managed that without my involvement one way or the other (my use of Chick-Fil-A did not increase or decrease).

I will go to the theatre and watch this one. I don't want to see good books not be turned into movies because someone disagrees with the politics of someone involved in the project. Art should be judged on its merits. If the movie is good, I will encourage friends to go see it as well. If it turns out to suck, well then I won't mind so much if it does poorly at the box office.