It's absolutely spot-on true. None of that information is public, apart from reported beneficial ownership. Even were that data disclosed, what do you really learn when the transfer agent says brokerage X holds Y shares? Or when they say they issued a certificate in name Z but have no idea whether it has been endorsed for sale or inherited or whatever? There are more examples.

I think there could be more to this than just "distributed transaction log" versus "traditional ledger." The current traditional ledger is a leaky black sieve inside a black box unless you're after potentially-outdated data on beneficial owners. Only a *nonpublic* distributed transaction log could possibly hope to offer as little information about ownership as the current system.

Not possible. What brought us "cheaper and more superior necessities" were advances in labor productivity. The failure of most "meaningful labor" to keep up with labor productivity in the broader economy is exactly *why* you have people freaking out about the cost of health care, child care, education, live entertainment, repairs, etc. Your doctor sees exactly as many patients as his or her predecessor did 60 years ago, but it now takes a third fewer labor hours to build a car.

And we don't have those *where* in the West?

Nice recursion on the "affordable housing" by the way. Isn't the whole premise of a market economy that everyone wants to pay less for everything?

Why would anybody ever want to pay it? If your money earns you just the paltry 3.3% that is the average interest rate on that debt, you're either a bit feebleminded, or you're invested only in US Treasuries.

People cannot afford the things they need.

I'm not sure which correction I believe to be more accurate:
People cannot afford the things *they think* they need.
People cannot afford the things they *want*.

No. After three years the burden of proof merely shifts. And abandonment requires an intent *not* to resume use- there may be literally tens of thousands of email messages at X on the subject of how to relaunch the Twitter brand. Without the evidence, you'd just be guessing.

Purely nominal use is insufficient in the U.S. "Trivial" and "irrelevant" might as well be synonyms for "nominal" here.

Musk and X did everything they needed to in order to maintain some control over the "Twitter" mark, and plenty of just plain third party marks in existence, for that matter: having more money to throw at legal fees and more willingness to do so than their opponents.

Defend whatever you want, buddy. The reality is they're literally making it up. The *only* thing they've got is an anonymous source. The documents are completely specious- they contain no alterations to federal contractor requirements whatsoever. Yes, they reference the Justice40 bogeyman, but that, too, make no changes to federal contractor requirements. So pardon me for using the word "biased" when "liars" would have been more fitting.

From an obviously-biased source, yes. Not one reporting the reality of actual federal policy. Ooh, "one senior official!" And "internal memos!" Couldn't possibly be made up, not with their utter failure (and yours) to cite a single public document outlining any policy change whatsoever from the prior half century.

How would the article be any more falsifiable if they had blamed leprechauns? Do you think it might have been leprechauns?

Were there? How odd that I've mentioned three of them explicitly and you're at zero, even after being called out for your ignorance of *any* of them.

Sure, so ignore what the administration actually did, then. Perhaps the citation of 5 numbers and 3 letters was too difficult for you. Wouldn't surprise me, you really are a dumbass.

To think, it would take one, just *one* citation to any federal official document whatsoever and you could look like less of a dipshit.

Ah, so Congress then, if anyone, rather than Biden. Fucking moron. And there's no such provision in the legislation anyway, making you doubly moronic. Perhaps you would care to review 23 CFR 680 wherein all the long-preexisting requirements are conveniently listed.

Via which executive order or federal rule that actually exists? I assume it's in the same document where they admit to stealing the 2020 election from Trump, but for some reason I just can't find it without your help.

Why would you want the government to take more of your money, on which you can routinely make net 9%, just so that the government can avoid 3.3% interest?

It's not the debt that bothers you, it's the government services. You're just hiding the ball so you don't have to seem so Republican.