How much money was "won" by friends of Donald Trump who bet on when Trump would do this or that? How about those who conveniently timed stock trades perfectly with announcements by Trump that would cause the overall stock market to go up or down?

Now, bets on who would be the most searched for...when was the bet placed, just before the information came out, or a year ago where it would require search/advertisement manipulation to have working at Google provide any sort of extra tip information where it would be against the rules?

What Marjorie Taylor Greene missed was that if there really were Jewish Space Lasers, she would have been zapped out of existence decades ago. If doing damage is your goal, then use an excessive amount of power, and yea, no problem if ANYTHING gets in the way of the beam.

Many kids in school don't like being forced to just memorize things, so giving them APPLICATIONS of what they are learning is key. I was always the one who would ask "why?", which annoyed my parents and teachers, but in the end, illustrates how to break through. Applications of the things the children are expected to learn.

For English, when a student used poor language skills, challenge them, "what do you mean? Do you really expect anyone besides you and your close friends to understand what you are talking about?" There are many uses for mathematics that goes beyond just, "solve this direct problem", make the students really apply the things from math class to solving things, and give them the sense that figuring out the solution is actually rewarding(it wasn't an obvious thing, it required thinking through the problem to come up with the right formula to use to solve it).

The old era of "memorize, memorize, memorize" as a way to get through tests is dead. You don't want to make it easy to use computers/AI to do well on tests, so the way around that is to make it so students need to really understand the questions/problems in order to use computers/AI to come up with the solutions.

There are fundamental issues with the way AI is being promoted and used by companies that cause significant concerns. Using AI as a tool makes sense, but because AI does not have a fundamental ability to test itself and the results it generates, you should not automatically trust what comes from AI. Things like "AI hallucinations", where AI gives things like legal cases that do not exist as an argument for a legal brief are documented. The structure of software written by AI may also defy the ability to fix problems in the code generated. If the code generated by AI can't have bugs fixed because the code isn't well designed/structured, that's a BIG problem.

And then, there is the "over-promise" of AI...yea, AI can be used to eliminate human jobs, before the actual quality of what AI is doing has been verified. This would be like taking a group of high school graduates, giving them jobs, but then, not having experienced people monitoring what those recent high school graduates were doing, or correcting "bad behaviors".

Again, AI has potential, but is too new to be trusted at this point to be a full replacement for human employees. As a tool for employees, hey, it's all good, but those employees should also do a verification that what the AI came up with is accurate.

No, they are not "kept from art", but physical and mental exhaustion caused by a difficult life can cause people to lose their desire to just look at art. When life beats you down, some people who are naturally artistic will go to art as a refuge. For the rest of us, we look to activities we find entertaining, and that often involves either DOING things, or watching others do things.

Now, I'm not suggesting you are MAGA, you actually have a good argument. Culturally though, we are at a point where those going through difficult times will have the majority looking to activities. There's a reason the masses would go to watch people being thrown to the lions or in gladiator combat, or sports. Some are just "wired" to more physical activities. Now, make them climb a rock wall to see the art, and that might work to serve both sides.

Be that as it may, it really does come down to the wealthy having advantages in the USA that would cause a longer lifespan, and that includes not having access to decent healthcare options(short of emergency services) for those who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum. For many, it ends up being an issue of the culture where many have been raised not to go to a doctor when they are not feeling well due to the economic situation their family was in, or even their parents who were raised not to seek medical care.

Those who "come from money" will often be raised to seek medical care sooner than those who come from the lower end of the economic sectrum due to how they were raised. Call it class warfare, but that's life in the USA.

You obviously don't understand the actual post being made. The more difficult life is to do things like paying your bills, working multiple jobs, and things of that sort, the more stress people will have, which shortens their lives. On the flip side, those who have more leisure time and carry less stress will live longer.

It needs to go beyond just what they consume, but also, for ALL infrastructure upgrades associated with it. You open a new sports stadium, the stadium owners should be paying for highway and rail construction, plus maintenance for those things going forward. You open a data center, the data center owners will generally not be paying for upgraded transmission lines, transformers, and even the cost of all new generators required.

It's not just about the water bill, who pays for infrastructure upgrades needed to deliver water/power? When the local community is expected to pay the price for infrastructure upgrades imposed by a single business pulling resources, that's a big problem, unless that business wants to make the local community shareholders where the increased utility costs they will pay FOREVER going forward are more than offset by the shares in the business going up in value. You want socialism for the wealthy, then the wealthy should then share their wealth with the community that ultimately ends up paying the price for their businesses.

There is something a bit more fundamental at work here. If any single business requires ANY utility to upgrade its infrastructure to deliver power, water, or other things, then that one business should be required to pay for ALL of those infrastructure upgrade costs. Why should the local community be expected to cover the expenses that are ENTIRELY caused by a single business? Yes, water usage and power draw by themselves are something to be concerned with, but this comes back to the old idea of "socialism for the wealthy and rugged individualism for everyone else" being seen as a major problem. SOCIETY should not be paying businesses to make the owners even more wealthy while contributing very little to the local community. You can be sure that town board members that are the ones who keep approving these things have their members getting paid off while the community ends up paying the price. Suggesting those people should just be voted out is the sort of clueless comment that often comes back, because those running for office tend to be wealthy themselves, or they are retired and have enough money where they don't care what happens to those who still need to work for a living.

AI would do a better job than most CEOs that are out there at this point. Look at Ford, or HP, or just about any other company that grew large on good products that have dropped the ball on innovation and understanding that they lose business by being horribly short sighted.

You don't see the problem that is looking at you and seeing a world where you won't have a job and where most people will end up homeless. When businesses can use AI to replace people all across the company, that means...fewer jobs. The only people who do well at that point are those at the top of the economic ladder. It's not just the low level jobs that will always be replaced by automation, it's the low, middle, and even high end jobs that may go away. There won't be a need to "learn AI" when the wealthy can just pay for AI tools that will eliminate the need to code in the first place. When everyone is unemployed, only the wealthy who don't need to work ANYWAY will do well, and they don't care about those who are unemployed. Government is owned by the wealthy as well, so government won't care about the 80% of the population who are unemployed. When have you heard Republicans(or most Democrats) care about those out of work or down on their luck?

You misunderstand what MANAGEMENT is doing when it comes to jobs. AI as a job aid, AI doesn't or wouldn't bother most people, it is when AI is being used to replace people entirely, and the quality of what AI comes up with is poor where people are against AI.

Will....maybe, not necessarily better, and those robots, where does the power come from when the AI data centers are pulling all available power from the grid?

The wealthy with all that money from the stock market are definitely making a lot of money, which most of us don't have the disposable income to have dropped $100,000 into NVIDIA four years ago to have really profited from it. Wall Street only cares about corporate profits, and those corporations will still make a lot of money from senseless wars, even if we go into a full scale depression. That's the nature of the modern economic climate, those with a lot of money get rich while the rest of humanity starves.