Strange as it may seem, the SCOTUS disagreed with you and said they did have standing. Alas, I'm sure your vast knowledge of Constitutional Law exceeds theirs, not to mention the hundreds of other lawyers who worked this case trying desperately to prove lack of standing. I'm sure you're right. So sure. So very, very sure. I mean, it's not like you can be wrong. That would be a tragedy.

It's quite simple if you do reading comprehension. Here's the relevant text from the Act itself:

"Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 - Authorizes the Secretary of Education to waive or modify any requirement or regulation applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as deemed necessary with respect to an affected individual who: (1) is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (2) is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war, operation, or emergency; (3) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or (4) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency."

Team Biden tried to take the last words from items #3 and #4, claiming COVID was a "national emergency" and hence the Act empowered the Secretary of Education to broadly waive vast swathes of student loan debt. The problem is, that's not what the Act was meant to do. It was meant to assist military veterans as stated in sections #1 and #2. Pelosi knew this and that's why she said Biden couldn't waive the debt. Team Biden knew this also but did it anyway, banking on the SCOTUS reversal happening after the latest election cycle (which is exactly what happened). It didn't help their case that they tried to do this after publicly stating the "COVID emergency" was over and lifting COVID restrictions. Kinda hard to argue a national emergency in the past needs such sweeping re-interpretation of a law now, but that misses the point. Team Biden knew this wouldn't pass muster and didn't care. It was -- and is -- a political stunt.

If Biden and Pelosi really want to relieve student debt, why didn't they do it when they controlled Congress and the White House? They could've passed a law and it would've withstood SCOTUS scrutiny if they'd done it the proper way. It doesn't take a genius to realize why they didn't do it when they could: because it's not broadly popular with the people who will actually pay the bill for student loan relief. Biden's ploy was to give Congress shelter from the consequences of passing such a law, knowing the SCOTUS would deem it illegal, but after reaping the political benefits of trying to do it.

The SCOTUS did no such thing. It ruled Congress does not have arbitrary abilities to delegate. That is a very different thing than what you suggest. If Congress had such an ability, it could -- and effectively tried to -- completely sidestep the Constitutional separation of powers. Congress holds the power of the purse, not the Executive branch.

If Joe and Nancy want to abolish student debt, they can do it the legal, proper way: pass a law through both houses of Congress. Since they refused to when they controlled Congress and now cannot do so without GOP support, that is unlikely, so they attempted an end-run around the Constitution. The SCOTUS rightfully put a stop to that.

False. There are literally thousands of currently-unfilled jobs that pay quite well, some even more than you can expect with a degree straight out of college. They're called "trade jobs". I've seen ads for welders and pipefitters in the oil and gas industry where you can make around six figures. Sure, they're not cushy office jobs, but it's a lie to say the only way to make a good living in this country is to get a degree.

You also suggest -- somewhat rightly -- this is a "government-created problem." It's a bit more complex than that. Universities used to be much more affordable. Then government-backed student loans became a thing. With students having easy access to big money, universities hiked up fees. As fees increased, so did the size and number of loans. It's a self-reinforcing cycle. The solution, however, is not another government program. The solution is to get government out of the student loan business, the catalyst that started this in the first place! This "debt relief" money doesn't come out of thin air, you know. People who paid off their loans, or didn't take loans, or didn't even go to college are being forced to pay for it.

Let's assume you're correct. What about all the people who paid off their loans? What about the people (like myself) who worked themselves through college and graduated with no debt? They worked hard, sacrificed, and planned effectively so they wouldn't be saddled with such debt. What kind of "relief" do they get out of this?

The answer, of course, is none. Indeed, these are the poor sops who end up paying the taxes that pay off these "student debt relief" programs! They'd have been much better off not working so hard and sacrificing so much, depending instead upon the Almighty Hand Of Government to bail them out at someone else's expense!

There is an old saying in government: if you wish to discourage something, tax it; if you wish to encourage something, subsidize it. Student debt relief encourages irresponsible behavior and discourages sound financial activity.

Yeah - it's pretty close to how it works in Europe. It covers 4 years, though, not just 2, and it pays 100% at plenty of community colleges.

This is a better model, anyway. Tell everybody "here's how much we'll pay" and the free market is able to say "well, we can provide an education at that price".

Thatâ(TM)s how it works in Tennessee and I think Kentucky as well. Not sure why everybody points to Europe.

https://www.wildgorillasafaris...

A silverback can bench press around 4000 lbs. - basically, a car.

By the way, that's without working out. Humans can bench press over 800lbs., but that's with years of training and likely some hormonal help.

You'd have about as much success at that as trying to hijack a plane and crash it into the WTC post 9/11. Every hijacking attempt since then has ended in pain and humiliation for the would-be hijacker.

Your very first paragraph leaves out something (intentionally?) that was said by the CEO just before you started your quote. The CEO specifically said he didn't want "old white guys" on his team. So, to you, "diverse" must mean "I will exclude anyone who is not young." Anything exclusionary is, by definition, not inclusive or diverse. Quod erat demonstrandum.

This is exactly the kind of garbage we get when the dictionary itself is under siege.

This is why Iâ(TM)m not going to have shareholders. Iâ(TM)m currently setting up a new service (founded the company in January)⦠and Iâ(TM)m going to price it hella cheap because I donâ(TM)t need to make millions right away⦠but Iâ(TM)m going to keep the company small and Iâ(TM)ll be profitable within this first year with a small number of users. I can just hang out and let revenue/profit grow at a reasonable pace. No need to try to play pricing games.

Once again, a company has chosen one of the least-useful metrics to "improve" their product. Was anybody griping about how thick the last product was? No, they weren't. What they were asking for is more ports (or fewer dongles) and better battery life. Is there any significant body of consumers that wouldn't prefer an extra 50% (or more) of battery life for a laptop that is 1mm thicker and a few grams heavier? No, there is not.

One can only hope this madness one day stops. We reached the usefulness of "peak thin" roughly a decade ago. Every step taken since then has come at the cost of battery life, usability (i.e. ports), and durability. These things are tools, not art sculptures. Try treating them like that.

Yes, but what challenges are hindering adoption? It's not price. If enterprises found significant enough productivity gains in AR, $3500 would be an impulse buy. The issue is nobody needs AR to do their current job, and AR adds little or nothing of value to productivity for those jobs. This is literally the case of a solution in search of a problem.

You could make the argument that uses for AR will inevitably follow the introduction of such a product. I would agree...if that product were priced low enough to make mass adoption possible. I'm sorry, but $3500 is nowhere near that price point. It's off by at least an order of magnitude if you want wide adoption. And without wide adoption, nobody is going to create any mass-market use cases.

If you want to see what semi-success in this area looks like, the Quest 2 is the benchmark. It was "good enough" VR for most folks, and the sub-$500 price point was nearly an impulse buy. People bought it in droves compared to anything else and ecosystems (to some extent) sprung up to take advantage of it. The Quest Pro was a serious misstep, pricing itself out of the market. Sales have been dismal and discounts haven't helped. Apple said "hold my beer" and went even pricier. Not going to bother taking bets on how that will turn out.

You forgot the sarcasm tag on your post.

With $3500 being the entry point, you'll have to give up some of your other addictions to afford it. How much coke, crack, or weed could you get for $3500?