"use their personal card for work travel and then file paperwork for reimbursement"
Oh no, you mean like 80% of businesses do?

THE HORROR that someone is actually checking this shit off and signing for it.

Oh, and then the person themselves gets the rewards for their travel which is pretty awesome, instead of the organization using some GSG9's ff miles so Hegseth can pinch the stewardii in first class.

Your landscaper having a degree in botany makes a little bit of sense. At least in Europe where they value quality. Not that you don't get good landscaping in America, but the equation is slightly different

'replace' with what?

Definitions. AI will take the place of non-AI in much of the corporate world. Already begun. Film at 11.

Tell me you don't do actual work without outright saying it.

The kind of people who are wanting/trying/thinking about killing excel are, in my view the same people who believe the same thing about email, and think you can do useful ongoing work communication on teams or other shit-chat platforms.

In May DOGE deactivated more than a HALF MILLION credit cards that were just floating around in Gov't slush drawers that couldn't be attributed to a specific employee, and this was noted as "nearly 10% of all the official credit cards held by the federal govt"...meaning the gov't had 5 MILLION open cc accounts.

First, university education is not a monolith. Technical degrees from institutions that actually teach the subject matter have value - engineers still engineer, theoreticians still work out theory, these sorts of degrees and others have real value, even in the AI future.

Second, universities that teach 'soft' subjects, liberal arts, etc., have a more difficult value proposition. And it has been, at least at prestigious institutions, connection. That is, connection to the influential, the gatekeepers to profitable employment. In fact, it is more dependent on the prestige of the institution than the quality or caliber of education. Without choosing moral or political sides, influence, connection, prestige, access to the higher-paid careers.

Only that isn't working as well as it is sold. Certainly the institutions in next tier down have less and less to sell, and placement statistics show this. Much of this is the reality of corporate employment today, if you're not an NGO, government agency or affiliate, or political influencing entity, you got very little work to offer. The starting pay is lower, the career prospects dimmer, it's not good for the English Lit major unless they present something unique.

Connection to employment was always the driver. And connection to classmates used to be rungs on the career ladder. For the most recent generations, that is failing because they are not connecting to classmates. And this fellow classmate connection always was expected to become the future career connection, even if it was merely a reference.

This all points out a deeper problem. Recent generations of entry-level employees are too often socially inept. They have a hard time fitting in, and while it is popular sport on /. to rail about corporate ineptitude, immorality, and unethical existence, you should fit in before you go about remaking the corporation. Or, put more bluntly, you need to be in there to change from the inside. But the incoming generations are so inept that they are stalling their development, or worse, risking the process skipping them entirely. Just as we get reports of teaching degree programs that fail to teach how to teach, many business administration programs fail to teach how to get along. And you get bull in a china shop entry-level recruits that take a while to figure out what the game is, much less how to play it.

Connection? Well, a final note. University campuses have become battlegrounds, where the most innocent remark becomes a microaggression, the transgressor is expelled, and he perception of justice is the purpose of the institution. I don't advocate eliminating codes of conduct , but if universities cannot even employ due process and fair play, they are defective. No wonder they are making their student bodies into islands.

Seriously, that's how America works? Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

In most of the rest of the world it doesn't work that way.

Firstly things are typically not allowed to be sold unless they can be shown to be reasonably safe - which this study was invaluable for.

But when suing you need actual damages to claim for and you have to show direct harm. There isn't such a thing as punitive damages. The model is to try to prevent bad things from being sold up front rather than assume firms won't do it because of the punitive damages that will be awarded once someone is hurt.

Cancer is particularly difficult to attribute to a particular source.
Technically exemplary damages do exist in the UK but they exist in very narrow circumstances.

Mesothelioma, for example, is extremely rare other than due to asbestos exposure. It is not caused by smoking. This makes it easier to sue successfully (outside of the US I guess) for damages.

In most of the world a study like this is not a defence against damages, but would tend to lead to a presumption that glyphospate was safe to use. But that applies anyway because it's regulated. More likely than not the path to damages would be against someone who used it outside the recommended ways.

Withdrawing this study is unlikely to have any impact on the probability of suing for damages due to glyphosphate exposure or have any claim against Monsanto.

"If AI could replace humans, it also replaces corporations.'

AI will not replace corporations, it will become the corporation.

Let me guess, competitors can now produce and market it. So now they need to stop it being sold so they can sell the next great thing at huge markup.

Oh shut the fuck up with your tiresome bullshit.

I honestly don't give the slightest fuck if a family member is convicted of a crime because of my DNA sample. In fact I'd be delighted.

DNA is pretty low error.

US imports are up 10%?

That's funny, all the Internet experts here on slashdot insisted, INSISTED that the widespread application of tariffs was going to ruin our economy.

That's curious, didn't you think?

no problem.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

Feels like a simple thing to audit: snap inspection and see the average ages of currently in use equipment.
If it's what they're claiming, give them a refund.