And attaching some the implication that yielding to market forces and allowing your workers to work from home is some form of weakness associated with femininity is a much better class of argument?

The thing is the tech for the previous generation of reactors is mature, this generation is all new designs, thus you pay the prototype penalty. it's engineering, and on a mega scale so sometimes the only way to test things out is to build it. Unfortunately because folks decided not to build reactors for a few decades a certain amount of expertise retired or left the industry. These are people who made all the mistakes and learnt not to do them again so we again have to pay a learning cost.

The best choices are thus: either build lots of reactors of the same design over and over again or don't build them at all. Build just a few and you get this, and really what else did you expect?

Well you could import some blue collar folks to build housing and services? Perhaps a few teachers and healthcare workers to support the additional population. As you are importing young working age people, the tax base will actually grow, rather than this being a burden.

Honestly I never understand why countries like the US and Canada moan about living space. You have a population density of 4 per Km2 in Canada compared to 37 per Km2 in the USA, 118 per Km2 in France and 280 per Km2. Not all of that land is actually habitable of course but suitable land is still abundant, all you have to do is have the will to build on it. The only real barrier is the popularity contest that is local politics and NIMBYism, not anything actually real.

Not in this case, it's just 36 square miles of land, it belongs to the US government and they're choosing not to sell it. You might not like it but it's their property. Yes Lithium is useful, but it's not like this is the only supply there's plenty of lake beds which won't mess up the nations satellites.

I mean like boo hoo, someone doesn't get to make some money because it will cost the rest of us money. The politicos in this scenario really don't seem to understand how important satellites are to the US economy. It might seem like it's boring stuff but accurate maps and measurements help make a lot of stuff we take for granted work.

Safer but not magical, they still have to conform to the laws of physics, which dictate that all cars have a finite stopping distance. It is sloppy magical thinking to make the implied assumption that safer = infinitely safe. There are two parties involved in this collision, and if the circumstances make the collisions unavoidable to the driver, then the other party can still choose to avoid it. Aka if you love your dog, leash your dog and keep it short near roads. Dogs don't know better but you do.

The problem not the prompt, it is that this is an inappropriate task for a chatbot. I'm not sure how many folks you've known with an eating disorder but most of the ones I've encountered don't say "I feel fat" they tend to say "I am fat", with definite certainty. Their periods have even stopped but they look in that mirror and see a fat belly; when in fact they have a BMI of 15 but just can't see it because they're "just so fat". We can't pretend it's an adversarial attack on the prompt because people with these disorders say the same kind of things to human beings too.

Eating disorders are closer to an addiction than a disease, if you listen to some of the language it's not that dissimilar to the disordered ways of thinking in a gambling or porn addiction. The problem with using text based communication to try and help rather than voice is you can also miss what little cues they're giving you, but frankly this is a hard psychology problem. Basically it's still way too early to use a chatbot for this, the only people who think this will work are the ones thinking too much about money and not enough about effectiveness and risk.

Agreed, this is the unfortunate thing here, it's a nasty little moral hazard that universities and private lenders are more decoupled from the risks than they should be. It also tends to lead to empire building in universities where leadership end up building the prestige of the institution rather than focusing on value for money.

The problem with this comparison is that student loans don't play by the same rules as every other kind of loan of this size. They're not secured against anything because you cannot repo an education and people at that point in their life have few assets. Consequently they have the extraordinary provision that they cannot be extinguished in bankruptcy. Comparing them to mortgages is therefore somewhat disingenuous.

Student loans exist as a matter of policy because we want people to be educated. Unfortunately they have reached $1.76 trillion as of December 2022, which brings it to about 7% of GDP. This is a growing economic problem and cannot be allowed to persist, that kind of drag on the economy causes nasty system-wide collapses. Unfortunately nobody can agree on what to do about it and politicians being stupid and partisan have turned it into a political football rather than really trying to solve it.

Start by reading a bit of history. We have already tried a lot of these ideas, they're old ideas. What we learnt is that super radical policy be it left or right tends to ruin the economy.

You misread this no foreclosure is needed, every debt the US government issues has a maturation date when it has to be paid off. We issues new debt every year multiple times a year. What I was saying is that there is a constant wave of maturing US bonds which are constantly being paid off and replaced with new US bonds. Old debt is constantly being repaid with new debt.

Unless you want to ignore that particular new debt, in which case you're ignoring a lot of the new debt. Oh and that 1/4 of the budget you wanted to use to pay it off rather than issuing new debt? That has just disappeared because you disrupted the money markets and laid off a load of federal workers. This means that tax revenues would drop through the floor due to the economic shock. Don't believe me? I'm sure you don't but the history of economic depressions shows us this is what happens.

You still haven't explained how you'd deal with the economic shock laying off a million workers would inflict, it would be great depression mk II, homeless camps everywhere, etc. They stop working and suddenly you, yes you will lose your job. Why? Because those 1 million federal employees used to pay taxes and spend in stores, you've just rapidly turned them from economically active to inactive. The knock on is that every job including your job relies on other people having money to spend. See Flint MA for what happens when you lose a major employer. It would take a decade for them to get into other productive activities, read up on the great depression (1929–1939) to get a feel for why FDR had to create the New Deal.

You haven't done your research here, or you'd know it's somewhere around 1% of the budget. You'd also know that a lot of that is actually spent in the US funding US citizens to do research in the US. Other bits are spent in places like Mexico and Latin America ensuring they don't deteriorate too much and send a bunch of refugees fleeing over the border. It's a bloody bargain, you get influence over other countries and ensure your neighbours problems don't become yours, what's not to love?

Call it the price of society in general recognising undisputed your ownership of your wealth, aka the social contract. A person is only wealthy and gets to enjoy that wealth in peace because society as a whole has agreed to recognise you own specific things and thus allows you to keep them without a fight. There are a lot more poor people than rich people, so if it came down to it rich vs poor the poor would win just by sheer numbers. The only way to counter this would be to go the expense of employing a load of poor folks as a private army. The reason you don't have to do is because the poor aren't poor enough to want to fight yet, but if the feeling of unfairness and inequality grows too great then enough people will decide that you're not going to be rich anymore. Thus the rich pay more taxes

I love these lil pat answers, they're so naive. The problems with what you suggest which I'm sure you're aware of but have glossed over because they don't support your argument include the following:

Firstly you've got all the existing bonds, that still needs the coupons to be paid for and if you can't refinance it when the bonds mature (aka issue new debt to pay the old debt) then suddenly all your budget goes on paying debt. Before you even suggest repudiating the debt, bear in mind how much of it is owned by Social Security, US pensions and other US investors, a debt death spiral kills your economy oops.

Secondly of course you'd have to cut services beyond drastically to achieve what you suggest. This isn't cutting the fat, this cuts to the bone. Suddenly a major employer aka the government has to lay off 1 million people, oops you broke the economy again!

Thirdly you have all those banks invested in government bonds where the value has become uncertain as the government may not be able to pay them off. Suddenly you have a whole chain of consumer side bank runs and collapses. Even if you have hedged against this with say gold, you'll struggle to find people to transact with for quite some time.

Government debt has been around since long before the US was even a country, suggesting you can kick that habit in 12 months is laughable.

Words are cheap and money talks. If what he says is true then these people are clearly either: a) not that important themselves and can't influence this decision or b) don't care as much as they say they do and won't influence this decision. Either does not bode well for Fedora within Red Hat.

Your argument isn't internally consistent because it ignores the fact that these people would already be well and truly dead if it weren't for modern medicine in the first place, they've just been given a postponement. That is all we can give them, we don't understand the human body well enough to work true miracles. Alas we as a society have decided to allocate a limited budget to medicine, so there is a limited number of beds (usually limited by staffing rather than equipment).

What you have in effect suggested is that we should keep hopeless patients on life support as first come first served without regard to those who lives would be saved and fully recover if that bed were available. That is simply not ethical, when you have limited resources you have to triage those most likely to benefit.

They didn't intentionally kill it, the problem was Steam was too successful so they have too little pressure to create. This is combined with Valve's flat+clique structure that for various reasons makes eating this kind of game kinda hard.