I concur. The unemployment rate is about 4% and even the more padded U6 unemployment rate is below 5%
Those are normal.
Under condition when unemployment rates are normal the primary job of the federal reserve is to bring down inflation. It's not simply a good idea. It's their mandate

The fact that there are more jobseekers than jobs is also close to normal. There's always a mismatch between jobs and jobseekers.

It may well be that those jobs are demotions or involve moving etc..

So the Fed has done everthing correctly.

But now they are on toes because we have the immigrant labor leaving and hightarrufs.

While those might increase the number of jobs available it might not fund takers. And both will cause supply side inflation. Simultaneously extending the tax cuts and the debt ceiling means the high rate of pumping debt into the economy will continue.

So the Fed is in an uncharted territory . It could mean high inflation is coming. Most likely. But it could mean a recession. You love the rate in opposite directions there! Most likely is both: stagflation. Which is awful. We did the stagflation experiment in the early 70s and tried both spending into it and later raising interest rates sky high. Only the latter worked.

Fed is exactly doing the right Thing by being watchful

I have two theories
1. Other languages are falling faster than Perl making Perl rise

2. Perl is what smart people use instead of bash. So for all sysadmin tasks or ad hoc system scripts or gluing you'd be crazy to use bash when you can use Perl.

Why start with a group "diagnosed" with ADHD at all? Why not compare randomized drugged vs non-drugged in general population?

The term "diagnosis" could be misleading. If you check my anti-bodies there is a positive result. If you look with a microscope you can see pathologies. But a list of behavior symptoms is totally different. And committing suicide is of a different order from becoming easily distracted. The drugs and the "outcomes" are "real" (the outcomes are not focused on behaviors, but on "facts"), but the "diagnosis" is "social". No one is looking at people's brains to see some kind of neurodivergence - it is a metaphor between the social and physical.

Flipping willy-nilly between levels makes everything so confusing and jumbled. Why insist that everything is biological/brain-based, etc? A good materialist acknowledges that emergent things create their own vocabularies and concepts and are not beholden to the sciences of their reductionist, microscopic constituents.

There may be a danger that "non-neurodivergents" react negatively to the drugs, but that same issue is possible within the diagnosed: there might be a sub-category of "ADHD" that responds badly.

does 2x shift the frequency?

I understand your knee jerk intuition about crypto currency. But very earnestly I suggest learning a bit about monetary policy. It's indispensable. And after that you may want to read about bretton woods and how banks in different countries actually can trade money to each other. The US treasury and its impact on monetary policy enables this. It's not just a methodology in the sense that bitcoin is a method for moving money. Monetary policy is how countries can perform the miracle of Keynesian economics to regenerate Growth in a downturn. That cannot ever be done ever without fiat currency and a central bank. Period. This was. Why for example Germany plunged in to pre-hitler ruin after world war 1. There was no way to climb out of turned down economy when you had no gold reserves (France took them). Germany only managed to recover when they pegged their mark to a kilo of wheat-- not a long term solution but a desperate move that mostly worked. But the economic malaise didn't end till Hitler started spending money into the economy. That was made possible by moving off the gold standard prior to Hitler.

Without monetary policy you are left with the austerity of Austrian economics which pretty much inverts the rational of monetary policy and loses all it's advantages.

If crypto ever rises to rival the dollar you can kiss the USA goodbye because it will mean the end of monetary policy and central banking. If you say good riddance, I think you may not understand how the world works

"What was War and Peace about?" "Explain linear algebra" "What is the history of the Persian people?" "What is the relationship between Dasien and Das Mann?" "What did J.L. Goddard do?" "How do I build a skyscraper?"

If the reply is more than 1 sentence, what's the point? I just want THE answer!

Coitus interruptus

I want to see a breakdown of FF expenditures: salaries, bandwidth, compute, etc.

Maybe there are tech ways to mitigate some of the costs, like using a bittorrent-style technology for bandwidth, encouraging home servers for cloud stuff (password manager, sync, maybe calendaring, etc).

I think there really is something to your point. FF never tries to take advantage of the weaknesses of Google and Apple, they always play nice and never step on toes. They didn't make a big deal out of being blocked from iPhone. They didn't pound of Google over manifest v3. They didn't ho for jugular against the bad monopolistic practices. They didn't set up an alt vision against the "App stores" or the "Cloud" etc. It feels like they decided to just try to stay in their own lane and coast. Do not get me wrong: love FF and the developers - they have done some of the best Free Software work we have ever seen. But maybe the org did become "beholden" like you say. Maybe this is an opportunity to shift.

If amazon pays the tarrifs they can deduct them from their taxes.

If they pass along the tarrifs then the consumer can deduct them

So
1. They have to do this if they are not deducting them

2. And there is no net revenue to the us government on any tax deductible tarrif collected

If amazon passes along the excise tax on a good for resale then they have to provide this to consumers who can deduct it.

If they don't pass it on then they can deduct it.

Either way there is no net revenue to the us government from any deductible tarrif

Lundberg conducts regular arsenic testing and publish results. Whole Foods' 365 brown rice has higher levels than other brands. Rice from California, India, and Pakistan mostly has lower levels than from southern US states like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. I assume this means that you can mitigate the arsenic. It seems like there are various approaches, some better and more thoughtful than others.

https://nutritionfacts.org/vid...

Did you see the E-waste Recycling in India post here recently? I didn't just RTFS but went to the actual site. Great article; the discussion on that site reminded me of the old days here.

Why do we want free speech?
- People have a natural right to express themselves (moral)
- Speech creates a vibrancy where good ideas or expression can convince, influence, or otherwise "win" (practical)
- The tyranny of the majority as a danger to all is most clear here (political)
- etc.
But these also apply to what "IP" wants to regulate. When I want to sing a song, write a book, make a film, make a speech (much less train my AI) I'm regulated by IP laws. Just posting a video very often leads to all kinds of roadblocks. Some might claim that my art that rips-off other's art is not "my" speech, but think of sampling, remixing, Wicked, Eyes on the Prize, Oresteia, etc etc etc etc. The vibrancy of art, science, and politics comes from various forms of remixing. The idea of free speech forbids us from thinking of the merits of the individual case ("this specific speech is worthless, derivative, threatens someone else's power") because we have faith that the openness of freedom brings forward all kinds of value (moral, artistic, political, monetary) that is not immediately apparent.

A lot of slashdotters and others seems to think that copyrights protect a moral right of artists to control their work, but this is a distinctly European, not American or Anglo tradition - this book gives a pretty good overview: https://press.princeton.edu/bo...

In my mind, the First Amendment came AFTER the copyright parts of the US Constitution, and so should be seen as overriding. I know no one agrees with this, but I think it makes sense. A constitutional power was given to the US government to regulate speech, but then, through the Amendment process, that power was taken away.

If copyright is meant to incentivize artistic and scientific and political advancement, then why is its efficacy not studied? It might be too entrenched to be able to look at, but when copyright is not enforced we see innovations, scientific and technological benefits, money being made, health care improving, and other benefits and knock-on effects. How much more bandwidth, disk space, recording devices, and paint would be sold in a world with no copyright? Can't we predict all kinds of job creation when copyright gets eliminated?

What about making other incentives that don't violate freedom? Subsidies? Tax benefits? Higher taxation on mass-distributed speech by commercial orgs? Stronger regulations against business advertisements? These could open the marketplace, encourage experimentation, make expression come from the ground up. But still leave a lot of room for making money. But these are just small, naive, spitballing ideas. I'm sure we could come up with a lot of new good ideas on how the state could incentivize art and speech.

Why ASSUME that the current system is optimal, but just needs tweaking?