No, it won't. The numbers ultimately published are massaged by agencies run by political appointees. Formulae are tailored to fit narratives and ultimately what we get is propaganda.

Your scheme, for instance: Who will be participating, and who will be eligible for a reward? These calls will be made by political forces.

As a retail investor I hate this because it just makes research more difficult when you make a change like this. So for apples to apples comparisons, in the future you bundle two quarters together and pretend they were a single reporting period? That would be fine if companies didn't already massage the numbers because of seasonality, but they do do that. So changing the seasonality afterwards lowers the quality of the information.

They still have to do the same amount of counting, and they still have to have the same number of lawyer-hours making sure they counted everything they're required to.

The releasing of the report itself isn't where the cost comes from. It's whatever claims the company chooses to make, or exclude.

Having a larger window could even increase the cost, because you have more uncertainty and so have to disclose more possible scenarios to investors.

That number is not credible. The prompts I write for "personal" purposes are literally indistinguishable from what a worker might make: for all ChatGPT knows I'm an auto mechanic. Location isn't a valid metric either, given WFH, mobile devices, etc. They can't possibly distinguish between work and personal to a one digit of precision. Obviously they can see whether prompts are coming from commercial accounts, paid personal accounts or free tier, but even that gets fuzzy at the low end.

There are few wells of propaganda deeper than those of "inflation numbers."

That, right there.

Just as one minute example of many: did you notice or care that BLS disappeared ~1.7 million US jobs in less than 12 months? "Corrections."

You have no "evidence." What you have is your preferred propaganda. Failure to dutifully inculcate propaganda as "evidence" is the exact opposite of servile.

If you could get a commie (or whatever you'd prefer) elected with the temerity to "just do stuff," you'd follow he/she/it off any number of cliffs as well. Pretend otherwise and show me your perfidity.

The framers put a lot of power in the Executive. The fact that whatever your side might be is incapable of producing actual leaders that can set aside the establishment group-think and leverage this is both a symptom of your sclerotic nature and also a shame. I'm not the simple minded knuckle dragger you presume.

If they did or didn't wouldn't matter to Trump in any meaningful way. Trump doesn't listen to technocrats until they make the mistake of opposing him. Trump also doesn't given a damn what other nations do or don't.

That's leadership. You may hate him for it, but you can't deny it.

I can't recall any business moguls jumping up and down about this. On the other hand, I haven't heard anyone screaming from the hills about the high costs of such a change either, and business never, ever fail to bitch about regulatory costs. So I have to discount your supposed concern.

That I can recall. Yes he did. He mentioned it on occasion in speeches, so this no surprise to me. Obviously it's not a big vote-getter of an issue, so he didn't walk around in a big red "MAKE CORPORATE REPORTING GREAT AGAIN" hat, but it was a point in the campaign.

We've all seen the "WTF Happened in 1970/1/2?" meme. Now, no one can credibly claim that whatever that stuff means had anything at all to do with the inception of quarterly reporting around the same time. I can claim, however, that somehow, some way, the US economy did, in fact, function pretty well before Nixon's SEC mandated quarterly reporting. So, perhaps Trump's change isn't actually the end of the world and the dawn of the Forth Reich.

If it helps overcome your knee-jerk Airbus vs. Boeing hang-ups, 737 MAX has a known failure mode that will rapidly gas the cockpit with vaporized oil. Equipped with this necessary whataboutery affordance, you should feel safe in at least allowing for the possibility that Airbus is also not flawless in all things.

Cockpits and cabins have been getting filled with various gasses since the inception of pressurization ~80 years ago. To Boeing's credit, the 787 has set a legitimate engineering precedent in aircraft design and eliminated at least some of the major sources of air contamination. Eventually, when Airbus copies it, you'll be able to safely ignore this. So no worries.

Wow! Joe Biden accurately predicted Vibe Coding!

When you're talking petabytes and "reading DNA", I don't think 60 minutes is the right order of magnitude.

Thanks to the legal joke of "concurrent sentences", there was not a single extra day sentenced for the piracy.

Actually not "piracy", it was a criminal theft and breach of trust. Unlike unauthorised copying, it really was criminal.

I'm not sure this is going to be public facing. Many of the objections seem to assume that it is. OTOH, AI is known for returning the answers you want it to return, regardless of the truth of those answers. So perhaps it's the perfect yes-man.