"This year, U.S. employment fell nearly 20% from 2024."
Were that true, we would be living through the worst of the Great Depression era. I asked perplexity ai for comparable statistics, and it claims that it took three years of the Great Depression for US employment to contact 20%.
That was the rebound year from Covid. It's a statistical anomaly, and chosen by a lot of news reports to highlight the severity of whatever point they're making.
Comparing today's employment against, for example, 2019 is also difficult due to the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants that entered under the Biden administration. For example, today there is about 4.3% unemployment, the average is 5.7%, so we're doing pretty good on that front.
Statistics can lie. Our 4.3% represents 7.4 million unemployed workers, while the 2019 3.5% rate represents 5.8 million unemployed. When you bring in 10 million undocumented people, it's easy to see how 5.8 million unemployed can swell to 7.4 million.
Statistics lie by comparing our employment to a year that had record values because of an anomaly, or compare the number of unemployed by number to a year before we closed the Southern border.
I don't think a healthy life, in and of itself, is all that laudable a goal. I'm reminded of The Witches of Eastwick... "When I die, I want to be sick. Not healthy." The question is, who benefits from the extended lifespan? Because it came at a cost. Opportunity cost... but a cost nonetheless.
You're assuming that having a healthy life is the primary goal, but it's not. It's secondary.
A healthy life is one of several secondary goals that you have in order to achieve your primary goals, whatever they may be.
For example, having a family/children is the goal of many people. Do you want to see your grandkids grow up? Have a healthy life.
Having enough money for retirement so you can travel (or just have fun) is another goal many people have. Want to enjoy your retirement? Have a healthy life.
Goals go hand-in-hand with motivations, and one way to increase your motivation for doing something is to identify how it contributes to one of your life goals.
So for example, that college course you're taking to get your MBA - are you doing that just for something to do, or does it contribute to where you want to be in 10 years?
It turns out that doing something "just for money" is not, by itself, a motivational goal. Doing something "for the money" that you will need to eventually start your own business, though... that's a motivational goal.
So no, living a healthy miserable life doesn't make much sense if being healthy is the goal.
Living a healthy miserable life *does* make sense if it lets you see your grandkids grow up.
With any international intellectual property case, the real issue is getting quick enough action from foreign providers as the article quite astutely points out:
This ruling is from the NY district court, which in theory only has authority over its district, and then only over the plaintiffs.
That last point is contested.
Several district courts have made nationwide injunctions against the current administration. For example, a federal court stopped Trump's 2017 travel ban from nations that didn't have good controls against terrorists. (Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen).
In a 2025 ruling the Supreme Court decided that federal courts do not have the power for nationwide injunctions. The courts *do* have power over the federal government, that's not thought to be beyond the court's jurisdiction, so a court can rule against a federal statute or executive order.
Suppose there's an issue (immigration is an example), and California sues New York in court to force some action and wins. The NY court can issue a nationwide injunction, but then Texas (also interested in immigration issues) can say that they have a strong interest in the outcome and were not party to the litigation.
The supreme court decided (outside of issues with the US government) that Federal courts should focus their remedies on the plaintiffs, and not the entire country.
So not only do countries outside of the US not have to worry about this, US districts that are not the Southern District of New York don't have to worry about it.
As anyone who's bought an early Tesla Model 3 with "Full Self Driving" knows, it's that Elon isn't afraid of making big promises and never making good on them.
From the Yahoo article:
May 2022: In a pitch deck for Twitter investors, Musk claims the company will bring in $15 million in revenue from a payments business in 2023.
October 2023: In a call with workers, Musk says he expects X to launch a payments feature by the end of 2024.
January 2025: An X post from then X CEO Laura Yaccarino says the product will debut in 2025.
February 2026: In an xAI all-hands meeting, Musk says a limited version is in beta testing. He also publicly extends an invitation to actor William Shatner, who later posts screenshots from his X Money account.
March 2026: Musk says in an X post that "early public access" will launch in April.
...and of course it's in beta to a limited number of users right now.
"Oh what wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face..." -- a prisoner in "Life of Brian"