"A technology can create value by reducing uncertainty, improving coordination, avoiding mistakes, increasing resilience, or expanding opportunities. Those benefits do not necessarily show up as higher output per worker."

This makes zero sense. What good are these things if they do not increase output? If you reduce uncertainty, you cut the time needed to make a decision, thus less wasted time and more output. If you avoid mistakes, that should increase output. If you increase resilience, that means less slowdowns and downtime which should increase output. Expanding opportunities should also increase output unless you are already at capacity. The whole point of these things is to make things more streamlined and increase output.

A few years back, I bought a new Evolve III laptop at Microcenter for $60 - $67 with tax and all.

Unlike a Pi, which is just a mobo and cpu, the laptop includes: power supply, battery, monitor, keyboard, pointing device, storage, and case.

A Pi 5 with 4GB Ram costs $70. Is that a great bargain?

1) Does anyone really think this will happen? I would put as much faith in this as I do Trump's $5000 checks in the GOP wins the midterms.
2) Does anyone really think he is going to give away his personal shares? Most likely, if it happens, they would issue 73 millions additional shares (or less as he will find some way to send them to only certain people), thus devalueing not only these new shares, but all the shares.
3) Even if he did give his own shares, that is still a time amount of his wealth. Does anyone really think he would ever even notice this change in wealth? This just shows how incredibly out of touch the uber rich are with regular people. This is about 1% of his net worth. He could give away 50% and it would never be noticed. But because it is a big number, people think this is rich people doing good when it is them doing the minimum for good press.

Yes, they did need the money for themselves. But one thing you seem to not understand about poor people is that they are much more likely to actually help people they see and know that are doing worse than them. The rich like to talk a lot about charity and giving, but they generally give less as a percentage of their income and wealth than poor people. Because these people know what it is like to be broke, they are more willing to give even the little extra they have to someone who needs it more than they do.

Jesus, not this shit again. You know why colleges are 58-61% women? Because 55-60% of the application submitted are from women. Now, with us acknowledging that more women are in college (and graduating college) now look at something like amount of women CEOs. Or the general pay gap. Or even the pay gap in the same job (much smaller, but still exists). If women are getting more college degrees, shouldn't that mean they also earn more and get higher positions since people with college degrees earn more? So why isn't this happening? Care to explain how that with your anti-male bias BS?

It was called “Cliff-Hanger Justice.” It was a satirical legal story written by Joey Green for National Lampoon magazine.
The multi-part story ran sequentially in the August, September, and October 1982 issues.

Google AI:
> "The piece is written entirely as a formal courtroom transcript and legal filings. In it, Wile E. Coyote sues the Acme Corporation for product liability. He seeks damages for the severe physical and psychological trauma caused by their chronically defective merchandise—including faulty giant rubber bands, explosive jet skates, malfunctioning catapults, and defective dehydrated boulders."

Ian Frazier wrote a highly similar, famously anthologized essay titled "Coyote v. Acme" for The New Yorker in 1990.

Just thought I'd mention it.

I expect to see a bunch of foreign power companies staying at Trump properties, playing golf at Trump resorts, and buying a ton of Trump coin followed shortly by their equipment being said to be "safe" and allowed to be imported. We NEED this equipment because we don't make most of it here and definitely not enough of it, so it will have to be allowed in. This is just a way for Trump to get paid by them to be allowed in.

Just what the world needs.

Not an expert, but I know somebody who uses such devices. The devices are inserted on the underside of her arm. She was told to never get the devices wet. I am not sure of the name brand.

The cost varies, depending on your insurance or whatever. But she pays $80 each for them. If they fall out, or get loose somehow, or if you don't stick the devices in just right, they have to be replaced. $80 down the toilet.

She can only get so many. If her prescription runs out, she has to go back to using needles until the next prescription period comes around.

It happens every time.
Maybe Trump is just doing this for show?

They have had tiny devices you stick into your skin for a few years now. They are expensive, and a PITA. If they fall out, you have to throw them away. You cannot get them wet. You cannot go swimming with the devices. You have to be very careful when bathing.

So is this something you wear like as watch? I don't see how. I think it would need to test your blood.

So how is this new? How is this "wearable?"

"could appear to violate our obligation to conduct our analysis in a technologically neutral manner."

What you are doing is exactly violating that. You set the goals based on where you want to be, not what you think the technology can do. That is what "technologically neutral" means. You are taking into account the technology when setting goals, which means you are not neutral at all. But what else would I expect from this band of asshats?

USAF Vet here.
I am not an enemy of the US, far from it.
I just had my account there permanently, and unfairly, suspended by some algorithm for "inauthentic behavior. " Attempts to appeal are instantly denied.
In the 15 years that I have had that account, I have never once done anything that they classify as "inauthentic behavior. "

At least old twitter basically worked.
I just had my account there permanently, and unfairly, suspended by some algorithm for "inauthentic behavior. " Attempts to appeal are instantly denied.
In the 15 years that I have had that account, I have never once done anything that they classify as "inauthentic behavior. "
I have found that I am not alone. Thousands of users are making similar complaints.