There are lots of people who I don't see eye to eye with on politics, religion, systemd... But I will still engage in commercial activity with them and I will still offer them the same price I offer anyone else. For a society to function we have to be able to disagree and still work together. Now if some entity is crosses a line in my mind but is still legal, should I be the one to decide not to do business with them? Should I judge companies by the clients they have? Should credit card companies handle transactions for porn? Should I not work for a company that also sells supplies to abortion clinics? Should I only rent an apartment to people I think are deserving based on my personal beliefs. I'm not a fan of Fox but I'm not sure not licensing something to them, when I might license it to someone else for the same price sets a very good precedent for society.

The general public is too stupid to understand capitalism or electricity. I'm a landlord with an older building. One of our local politicians wants to mandate we add air conditioning and electric charging. Oh and we have rent controls so I won't be able to increase the rent. Adding chargers or AC is almost impossible for me. My building power supply is about 7kW per unit. I have 3 people per unit. 3 AC units would add 4.5kW. A slow EV charger would add 1.5kW (assuming only one car per unit charged at a time). The driers will draw 5kW, 6kW for a stove, microwave 1.5kW, kettle 1.5kW, lights and everything else 500W. Now I'm counting on the driers, stove, microwaves and kettles not to all be on at the same time. But the AC and car chargers will be on consume 85% of the building's power. So I would have to upgrade the entire buildings electrical supply at my own expense. But I can't even do that! The power supply to the street and neighborhood assumes even less than 7kW per unit.

As long as politicians keep entertaining the idea of pushing a huge expense on landlords then no sane person is going to invest in building new housing for anyone but the richest renters. My city's housing "crisis" will continue to get worse. (need for housing has been consistently growing at 4x the rate of new dwelling creating but voters suck at math and keep voting in proposals that add small numbers of units while ignoring the issues that prevent investors from actually building at rates approaching the real demant)

If you have a small company that needs insane amounts of cash to innovate, you need investors who are willing to take huge risks. Those investors will lose more than 90% of the time so the payout when they win has to be huge. They also need the payout to be now, not 10 years from now so that, one, they can take the risk again and two, that there is a feedback mechanism so that they can learn to take better risks.

So banning buyouts, while it at first looks like it is allowing large companies to swallow the small ones and often ruin the innovation, is actually one of the main drivers in allowing small companies to raise capital in the first place.

Then there is the entire idea of ownership. You don't own Lumentum, you didn't invest in them, you aren't one of the founders, why should you have any say in whether or not they can sell THEIR company?

That is how a good interview should work but that requires a competent interviewer. I've interviewed with a number of large companies where the interviewer is expecting a specific answer and if you give them an answer that is significantly better, say doesn't require a semaphore to solve a concurrency problem, then you will fail the interview. Just asking a programming question is easy, understanding someone's thought process requires the interviewer to understand the problem. You are probably disqualifying 90% of your interviewers with that requirement.

It's my money. I'm responsible for it. If I give an entity my credentials to my money then I am accepting the risk. Even if I'm a moron and I'm trusting a crypto bro, a gambler or an AI. It is my money, not the banks. I can do with it whatever I want. If the AI, crypto investment or Magic the Gathering card collector makes me 100x return on the investment that the bank thinks I shouldn't have made, does the bank get to keep my profit? This seems like losers wanting to not take any responsibility for the downsides of their actions but I bet they still want the upside. Or maybe the banks can offer idiot accounts that don't let you access the money with out the banks approval for every transaction. And no buying lottery tickets.

The primary purpose of the stock market is to give companies money to invest in capital. Investors are gambling the company will pay dividends or its stock price will go up. If everyone only invested on the bases of future dividends and we didn't have day traders to create liquidity then the companies won't be able to raise as much money for new capital. There are serious inefficiencies in the stock market but this isn't one of them.

Crime stoppers tells people not to give personal information in the reports. In the early days most of the tips were phone calls. Crime stoppers then transcribed the calls and then, if someone did leave personal information, redacted it before passing it on to the police. BUT they kept the original information and that's what is also in this leak. This wasn't exposed because of the breach, it was exposed because Crime Stoppers kept information that they should have been deleting!

VMWare customers let themselves be locked into a service that they couldn't leave and didn't sign long term contracts to ensure a reasonable price. It's kind of like having only one insulin supplier even though the patent for insulin expired 70 years ago. Should the VMWare customers be allowed to die?

One suggestion is to have a set of boiler plate contracts and have companies use these and then certify that the contract complies to the standard. Sellers are completely free to choose the contract they want but having a contract that has a clause against this kind of abuse would make the sellers product more valuable. If I have to pay 2% more for a contract that avoids certain landmines in the future I would likely pay it. I'm sure most people depending on a life saving drug would pay a tiny bit more for peace of mine. The only caveat is to make contracts following the boilerplate optional. We don't want things like landlord/tenant agreements that are dictated by the government and that can be changed in favour of one party after they are agreed to.

If you want a replacement rate of 2.3 kids per woman its almost impossible to reach without some families having 5 or 6 kids.
Play with the math: assume 10 women.
2 won't find a suitable mate and won't have children,
1 (and a bit) won't be able to have a child.
2 will have only 1 child
2 will have 2.
that's 6 children among 7 women. So the last 3 women need to 5.667 kids each for your 10 women to have 23 children between them. Try other numbers. You realistically can't get to 23 children to 10 women without at least one family of 5 children

Our society makes it hard for people to start families at all. If you want more than 2 children you better start in your early 20s and you better be after tax rich. In Canada they eliminate all family support if you make to much. I've twice been screwed with an effective marginal taxation rate over 100% because, I assume, the government doesn't even consider anyone will have more than 2 children. Vacations and family outings are expensive. Hotel bookings often force you to pay adult rates for some of the children. Even if we fix housing, the s#@t opportunities for young people and the insane redirection of consumption from the working young to the retired elderly, we still won't get to the replacement level.

And coal doesn't get an even bigger indemnity? Coal plants spew fine particles, they spew lead and heavy metals, they have put 100x (likely 1000x) more radio active particles in to the atmosphere than all nuclear plants in the USA ever have. Yes, when nuclear goes wrong it could go very wrong* but coal, you know the thing nuclear almost replaced 55 years ago, always pollutes. If nuclear had replace coal, like most of people back in 1970 thought it would**, then we might not be totally f#$ked with global warming today.

*Three mile island was the worst nuclear incident in the USA and people within 10 miles of it received the equivalent radiation of a chest X-ray.
**Coal mines were going bankrupt in 1970 because the expected future cost of coal was going to be so low.

When there is a vote to certify who is eligible to vote? Is it anyone who signed up as a driver? Will the driver with 1 ride or even 0 rides have the same vote as someone with 5000 rides? This seems ripe for abuse.

That's my point. If a department has a policy of parallel construction then by that very nature none of the officers can be trusted. The judges should find be finding the officers assertion of probably cause in admissible and all evidence gathered fruit of the poisoned tree. A policy of parallel construction should be so damning to the DHS that DHS shouldn't be able to do any searches based on probable cause. Most of the DHS would need to be cut and an entirely new department created that wasn't tainted by this policy.

If a department has been known to use parallel construction as policy, I can't see how any judge would ever trust officers from that agency ever again. A defense attorney should be able to get nearly ever case that required probably cause for a stop or search to be thrown out. This seems like something that the justice department should instantly correct.

In Canada, when our RCMP was doing improper eaves dropping on people's communication our Prime Minister was so angry he took their power to do most eaves dropping away completely and create an entirely separate agency. I would assume the USA would function similarly.

The primary driver of negative prices is wind and political stupidity. In places like Ontario, Pennsylvania and Ohio the wind blows the hardest at night in late February early March, exactly when demand is the lowest but our politicians have guaranteed the operators of the wind farms that they will buy all the energy they produce.

Every aspect of the electric grid is governed by stupidity at a level unprecedented in any other industry. Fixing it is impossible as voters think electricity is easy and our media is terrified of math so there is no chance Joe public is going to get educated on it.