The Biden administration had plan to make to make community college free. Essentially, the federal government would give billions of dollars to states each year in exchange for the state eliminating tuition and fees at their community colleges. This was going to be in the 2021 reconciliation bill, but couldn't get the support of Senators Manchin or Sinema.

There are plenty of Democratic plans and proposed bills to make college tuition free. But doing that will require an Act of Congress. There is no Republican support for any of these plans or even the concept that college education should be free, so with the Republicans in charge of the House, there is zero chance of anything being passed on this.

Yes, the FTC has the power to issue a rule like this. See 15 U.S.C. 45 and 15 U.S.C. 57a, concerning "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce" and the associated rulemaking procedures the FTC must follow.

Elected representatives already decided this when they enacted Section 5 of the FTC Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 45, along with the rulemaking provision codified in 15 U.S.C. 57a.

Congress delegated the ability to make rules concerning "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce", and the FTC is using the authority that Congress granted to it.

If you don't like the rule, you can always comment in the rulemaking proposal, and if the FTC adopts the rule anyway, you can later sue in the courts.

Ha ha ha, I made a typo.

Seriously, if we are talking about addiction, that is usually a combination of both physical dependence and psychological dependence.
Adderall does not cause physical dependence, unlike drugs like nicotine or opioids or even alcohol. What does happen is psychological dependence and changes to the brain's dopamine system due to abuse. If amphetamine is abused, drug tolerance develops rapidly, and abusers have to take increasingly larger doses to get high. This can cause long-term changes in the brain's dopamine levels, often causing a withdrawal syndrome.

But this is not what happens when used long-term at therapeutic doses. There's little evidence to suggest that similar long-term changes occur in the brain when used at therapeutic levels. Some people will form psychological dependences on it anyway. But even a psychological dependence does not imply the problems of addiction.

Adderall is addictive, and those at biggest risk are new users and people abusing it recreationally. But if someone is taking it long-term, at therapeutic doses, they are unlikely to exhibit the classic hallmarks of addiction, such as impaired control over the substance, preoccupation with the substance, and continued use despite negative consequences.

Whether to take any medication is never a purely rational, level-headed choice. It is a combination of both the motivations and emotions that we have, and the rational calculus that forms part of our decision making.

Looking at the study itself, the students were given a 30mg dose of Adderall. Therapeutic doses start at 5 mg.
So it doesn't surprise me that the side effects from a 30 mg dose overwhelmed any possible cognitive improvements.

The studies cited that found cognitive improvements also note that there is a dose response-curve, where up to a certain dosage, you see improvements in sustained attention and working memory, and past that working memory takes a dive while sustained attention continues to improve. Until it too begins to decrease.

These aren't wonder drugs. They're drugs. They're substances that have physiological effects on the body. Doses make a difference.

Good comment, but I do have one clarification.

While Ritalin (methylphenidate) is a stimulant, it is not an amphetamine, but instead a phenethylamine. It works differently from amphetamine, since it works primarily as a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, whereas amphetamines increase the activity of neurotransmitters like dopamine. To simplify it, Ritalin works by keeping the brain from removing dopamine, while adderall works by increasing dopamine release. That's part of the reason why some people with ADHD respond better to Ritalin than Adderall, and vice versa.

That's completely incorrect. Don't spread misinformation.

Adderall, and its generic equivalents, are a combination of 25% levoamphetamine and 75% dextroamphetamine salts. They both have the chemical formula C9H13N.

Methamphetamine is a different drug entirely. In its medical form, it is generally sold as dextromethamphetamine hydrochloride, or under the trade name Desoxyn. Its chemical formula is C10H15N.

Both are approved for the treatment of ADHD in the US, but Adderall is much more likely to be prescribed. Under long-term medical use at therapeutic doses, addition is unlikely to occur with Adderall. While methamphetamine is approved for the treatment of ADHD, it is seldom prescribed due to the risks of recreational abuse and addiction associated with it. That said it is a safe and effective treatment for some people when other treatments fail.

Abuse of these drugs is another matter entirely.

It could just as easily be the other way around. Just because something might not be universal across all human cultures, doesn't mean it isn't biologically based anyway.

But that's the point I'm making. It could just as easily be the other way around. The fact that differences between sexes is cross-cultural proves that differences between sexes are cross-cultural. It does not prove any further fact about that those differences, or their basis. Damore assumes, as do the researchers he cited, that is proof these differences are biological in nature, without regard to their true etiology or even a mechanism of action.

I'm not aware of any research that demonstrates that cross cultural things aren't biological.

That's not how science works. We all start off with the null hypothesis, that there isn't any significant difference between populations, and that any difference observed is due to sampling or experimental error. And in this case, that means the first hurdle to pass is showing that something is truly cross-cultural. That's really hard to do. Most often, cross-cultural differences simply haven't been studied enough, and across enough cultures, for the effects of the differences in culture to shine through. 40 years ago, blood type effect on personality was thought to be biological in nature, and even recently color preference was thought to be biological. (See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311615/ for one culture demonstrating it isn't.)

Let's say you pass that hurdle, and have sufficient statistical power to show a real difference. With regards to explaining cross-cultural psychological differences, there are still three possible explanations: biology, biology and culture, or culture. Proving that a cross-cultural difference is biological in nature requires, at the very least, showing a potential mechanism of action. For example, heightened levels of physical aggressiveness in men (compared to women) across cultures is often explained by the effects of testosterone, which does increase aggressive behavior. There is plenty of research to show how individual differences in the biological activity of testosterone show up as cross-cultural psychological differences in amounts of physical aggressive behavior. But even then, that doesn't account for the differing levels of physical aggression among men between cultures. There you can see that culture matters: just because something is biological doesn't mean it is determinative, and in meta-analyses of studies on physical aggressiveness and testosterone, there are wide variations in aggressiveness, meaning that culture is by far the larger effect.

There is a ton of research showing that cross-cultural differences either really aren't as cross-cultural as the original researchers thought, and that the effects of biology on cross-cultural psychological differences are small. If you aren't aware of it, you haven't been looking for it.

How does Norway punish assertive women?

Not just Norway: they all do. Take this study published in the Harvard Business Review:
https://hbr.org/2015/12/leading-across-cultures-is-more-complicated-for-women

Men are allowed to to share conclusions; women are expected to guide listeners to conclusions. In not even one country were women allowed to be assertive in the same way as men. And this was a study about leadership positions. One might think there wouldn't be gendered expectations for corporate leadership, but there is.

And this is true for all kinds of examples about assertive behavior among women, not just in terms of leadership, but in negotiation and personal views, assertive women sustain social costs for that behavior.

Maybe he wasn't aware of that research?

Then maybe he shouldn't spout out publicly about stuff he doesn't know about. And I'm serious about that. We can't all be experts on everything. It's difficult to be an expert on even one thing. It takes a certain bizarre view of the world to believe you can saying anything about anything publicly and not suffer any consequences for it.

If he really wanted to help, what he really should have done is not try to start a debate: he should have actually talked to people first. Prepare drafts, shop them around first to make sure that people wouldn't find them offensive, and even if they did, at least he would be able to show his good faith privately, and rely on that good will. But it was toxic precisely because he didn't do that. Damore never established the good faith necessary to go further than saying, well, there's a history of discrimination, but well, *shrug*.

There are a number of conservatives who have argued and, in some cases, shown that the ways we are trying to combat discrimination are counter-productive and ineffective, and that there are better ways. That isn't what Damore did. Damore's argument reduces to the idea that women are less effective as a population, and that fighting discrimination shouldn't be a goal of Google's. He did so publicly, under his own name. That was inimical to Google's Code of Conduct, and ultimately, why he had to be fired.

One of the key sentences in the memo was where he blamed the anxiety that women at Google feel because they're neurotic.
"Women, on average, have more: ... Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance): This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." Did he ever consider that it may be because women only constitute 19% of Google's employees and experience stress because they are in a sometimes-hostile environment? No. He blamed it on their sex. Women are just neurotic. They just can't take the stress. That's his argument. If that's not what he's arguing, he shouldn't have included it in the first place. And that he did include it speaks volumes as to his views on women.

I don't know what Damore was trying to do. What I do know is that the memo was not the utmost Damore could do to create a workplace culture free of bias. If you argue that women at Google are anxious because they're neurotic, you are perpetuating bias and stereotype. As the Code of Conduct states, "Googlers are expected to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination."

Other people have explained why it was pernicious, both on the dubious scientism of Damore's claims, as well as the why it was the same old attitude against women in tech:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/11/16130452/google-memo-women-tech-biology-sexism

If he was trying to help, it was an epic, critical failure. But I don't think he was trying to help. He was trying to justify his own biases using flawed evidence, in his own insular form of groupthink. If you're trying to help, you get involved, you talk to experts, you learn about a subject in all of its dimensions. You develop the empathy required to understand not only how your message is delivered, but how your message will be received. You don't just spout out half-cocked on a company message board. It's a lesson we all should learn.

I generally don't reply to anonymous cowards, but I'll make an exception.

One of the weakest arguments in the memo was that
  "These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
They’re universal across human cultures"

Something can be socially constructed AND be universal across human cultures. Just because you prove that something is cross-cultural doesn't mean that you've proved a biological origin. Cultures are remarkably similar, and one of the ways that occurs is that men are dicks across all human cultures, and I say that as a man. We are dicks.

The same is true for women: the same factors across cultures punish assertive women. Assuming that is because of biology because it is cross-cultural is assuming your own argument.

He says, "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism."

Damore fails to also look at the mounds of research that shows most gender gaps have few other explanations other than sexism.

I was going to write a longer article on how and releasing that memo was so toxic, and a violation of Google's Code of Conduct, especially Section 2:

We are committed to a supportive work environment, where employees have the opportunity to reach their fullest potential. Googlers are expected to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination.

But then I figured that Google is going to paying lawyers to do that anyway.

I read the memo.
It's sexist.
It assumes its own argument.
It's combative in tone and dismissive in argumentation.
It's toxic for any company.
And to boot, it's wrong.

Actually, that's incorrect. Income is defined in the Internal Revenue Code (aka the IRC, also Title 26 of the United States Code) in 61:
"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived..."
It then goes on to list some included types of income, but expressly does not limit income to those kinds.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), holds that all gains except those specifically exempted qualify as income, that income is not limited by source such as by labor or by capital or both, and puts forth the test still used today to decide whether something is income or not. Income is an instance of "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."

So someone letting you live in their house for free is not necessarily income. The taxpayer (you) does not have an undeniable accession to wealth, merely an absence of payment. The taxpayer also does not have complete dominion over that, and if gratuitous, may be kicked out at any moment. Someone waiving a fee they normally charge is not income. That also fails the dominion prong, since the taxpayer has no control over it. There are circumstances where those can be income, but they aren't ordinarily income.

A friend giving you an interest-free or below-market interest rate loan isn't income either, but the IRS does have tables for the imputed interest you should charge because people have tried to disguise large gifts as loans. The gift tax is also there to avoid situations where someone tries to avoid the income tax by claiming it was a gift from someone. So the IRS isn't just going to take your word for it, unless it's small, like, less than $10,000, or you can show it doesn't have much of a tax effect.

Tuition waivers haven't been taxed because...*drumroll*... there's a statutory exemption from gross income under IRC 117(d). It has to be at an eligible educational institution. So qualified tuition reductions are one of those "except as otherwise provided in this subtitle."

True, but it also means that you have an incentive to please repeat players in the arbitration market.

But is that really true? I'm sure for some categories of disputes, having a reputation for fairness and honesty will ensure repeat business, because both plaintiffs and defendants have an equal chance of needing services. But that isn't true of many contexts, including the mandatory employment arbitration context.

The repeat player effect exists within the employment arbitration context. Whether the repeat player effect is because of repeat player bias is a hard question to answer, but repeat players (employers) do better than one-shotters (employees) in almost every employment arbitration context. And it creates a structural advantage when one side repeatedly goes through a process, so it has built-in expertise versus its opponents who are essentially going through the process for the first time, every time.

I have no problem with arbitration as a dispute resolution method, so long as it is voluntarily agreed to and negotiated between two parties. I've negotiated arbitration clauses in contracts. Outside of a collective bargaining agreement, or the rare employee that can actually negotiate their employment contract, mandatory employment arbitration clauses are disproportionately and unconscionably tilted towards the employer. And the same is true for consumer contracts that have mandatory arbitration clauses. Companies wouldn't be putting these clauses in their contracts if they did not believe they benefited from them. And they do benefit from them.

Don't be daft, of course punishments have been ruled cruel and unusual in the US.
Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), affirmed that death by torturous means such as drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive, or disembowelment were cruel and unusual.
Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), overturned a punishment called cadena temporal.
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), held that revoking natural born citizenship for a crime was cruel and unusual punishment.

Yes, people point to the outsize top figure, but, if convicted, for a first time CAFA offender breaking into a US government server, the US sentencing guidelines would probably max out around 5 years, with a 2 year sentence probably being average without any major downward or upward departures. I'm just spitballing that without any data to back it up, though, since computing any particular sentencing recommendation does take a lot to work out, and it varies based upon the individual case.

It is not all but impossible. In the last extradition review, conducted by a panel headed by Sir Scott Baker, they found the following:
That the US made 130 extradition requests to the UK.
That the UK refused 10 of those requests.
That the UK submitted 54 extradition requests to the US.
The US refused none of them.
Of the 120 requests accepted by the UK, 77 were extradited. The rest were either pending in the UK legal system, the person voluntarily went to the US, or the case became moot for other reasons.
Of the 54 requests accepted by the US, 38 were extradited. The rest either voluntarily went to the UK or the case became moot for other reasons.

You'll note that none of the UK extradition requests were pending the US legal system. If the standards in the treaty are met, the U.S. Constitution offers little in the way to prevent extradition to the UK. Partly that is because as a treaty, it is part of the Supreme Law of the Land (Article 6, Clause 2), and partly because the US Constitution poses almost no barrier to extradition.

The US extradites its citizens quite often and quite readily. Some countries refuse to extradite their citizens, even if there is a valid extradition treaty (see France and Brazil). So long as there is a valid extradition treaty, and the crime charged satisfies the dual criminality component of those treaties, the US has and will extradite its citizens.

There's a very sane reason why deposits of under $10k in cash is a sign of criminal activity: it is often a sign that someone is trying to avoid the reporting requirements. This is usually done to hide unreported income or as part of a money laundering scheme. Any bank personnel advising people not to cross that limit are subjecting the bank to potential liability and giving their customers bad advice.

Why is it bad advice? By avoiding the reporting requirements, you've just created probably cause to believe that something illegal is going on with that money. In which case, you have just given the U.S. government the ability to freeze the account and seize the money.

If the deposit is from legal sources, it is better to take the time to fill out the reporting forms. It is a hassle, but it is better than the alternative.
Even if the deposit is from illegal sources, it is often better to fill out the reporting forms, so long as you can do so without lying, which is another crime.