It doesn't matter what your credit score is if you don't pay back your card on time every month. That is a strong recent indicator that there is a problem that your past history doesn't accurately reflect.

If you are actually responsible with your credit cards, who cares if the interest is 25000%? You'll never be charged it anyway. That isn't a reason for society to allow companies to prey on the less fortunate, but anyone with strong credit shouldn't care what their credit card interest rates are.

Not true. I got a 24% interest used car loan when I was in my early 20s with no credit history. I refinanced it after a year (I had credit history then) to somewhere around 10%, and the loan for my next car was closer to 3-4%.

While I would like there to be a better way than what I went through (and I now know there is, but didn't back then), it still can work to get temporary large interest loans for very specific reasons. Keeping a 20+% interest loan for years is a recipe for disaster though.

Not anymore. Now it is about how can he line his pockets. This is just a ploy to get the finance industry to donate more to his "campaign."

That problem, in isolation, is easily solved by increasing tax revenue. The real problem would be if there wasn't enough wealth in the country to tax. The US is #1 in total wealth and #1 in total wealth per capita among the top 75 highest population countries (small countries should be compared with individual US states or even cities). The US is #39 in external debt to GDP ratio and #91 in external debt to wealth ratio. The US is just fine.

Posturing about the US federal debt level is just politics. The portion held by foreigners is only 5.5% of the US net worth, and the portion held internally can be solved with wealth transfer. We just choose not to fix it, but could do it at any time there was actually enough political will to do it.

This study seemed to easily show at least part of why the federal debt level isn't a problem, but those reading it didn't like that answer so they claim the results are confusing (and called the findings "premature").

It said the overwhelming majority of graduates get a positive return on their education, which is still true. The studies I've read have concluded between 60-80% of college degree recipients earn more than they would have without a degree after compensating for the cost of college and lost earning years. That is an overwhelming majority.

The top Bachelors degrees with over 100k of annual degrees conferred that have more women graduates are Health Professions, Psychology, Biological and Biomedical Sciences, and Social Sciences. So basically doctors, nurses, and psychologists. Not exactly low paying fields. Social sciences are obviously the ones you are referring to, but the medical field degrees outnumber those by 5 to 1.

As others have rightly pointed out, this is a very valuable export for the US. It not only earns us revenue, it improves the rest of the world which "rises all boats."

There are good universities outside of the US. If the US stops admitting as many foreign students, they will still get just as educated. They will just get educated in foreign universities. Those universities will grow and improve to meet demand, because that is how capitalism works.

We aren't making other countries more competitive. We are taking advantage of their drive to become more competitive. It is overwhelmingly a net benefit for the US.

I have had testing centers send me cameras in the mail to take a test. This was for an online college, and they sent two cameras. One was meant to be mounted to the monitor and the other was supposed to be behind me but offset to the side a bit. They combined to give a full field of view of my desk and the surrounding room. This is a pretty good solution, and these cameras are quite cheap now. Requiring the user to pay for them so they don't have to come into the testing center isn't asking a lot.

I want an accountant who knows how to game the tax code. Not one that knows how to game the testing process. Those are two very different things.

Capitalism is very wasteful, but so far the waste of capitalism has always outperformed more centrally controlled economies. That said, I agree it likely won't scale forever. The size and power of large consolidated global companies, the easy movement of wealth by extremely wealthy families, and how easy it is for the wealthy to wield populism as a weapon to maintain political power have arguably already pushed capitalism to its limits.

This LLM "spasm" is capitalism at its best. Massive funding into hundreds of new companies, 90%+ of which will fail in the next decade, is how capitalism has pushed economic growth forward for the past few centuries. That isn't the problem; the problem is our inability to spread out the wealth created by capitalism. It doesn't seam like our current combination of political and economic system in the US can handle this problem. When the status quo breaks, the result is almost always worst than the bad situation that caused the collapse, so if we are at the breaking point it's going to get a lot worst before it gets better. But perhaps our grandkids will appreciate us tearing the current system down.

That won't scale. Our world runs on plenty of systems that use statistical models to automate decision making. We prioritize how often we verify these systems. We already can't verify every single decision made by statistical models, but when it is something as benign as your Google search results we are fine with only verifying a small sample to do quality control. The same will be true of most code written by AI coding tools in the near future.

I said that I didn't need OpenGL or DirectX in the 90s because I was quite happy fine tuning my own graphics libraries with C and x86 assembly language. I also didn't want to learn early game engines for similar reasons. But I obviously couldn't keep up with progress by using the last generation's tools. I assume the same happened for early software developers when early compilers first started gaining popularity.

I don't think AI is going to replace software developers, but I doubt there will be many developers in 10 years that do almost any programming without heavy AI assistance. It's likely they'll be some niches where AI assistance isn't useful, but the other 98% of developers won't be able to match their colleagues capabilities and productivity without AI coding tools. Just like I couldn't keep up with modern game developers if I was still writing an entire game with my own C and x86 assembly language libraries (although in all honesty, I've moved to the healthcare industry now).

That would only be fair if Epic/Unreal had a large enough market share of the gaming industry, and significant ability to lock their gaming customers into only Epic/Unreal gaming platforms, to be considered as much of a competitive concern as Apple's App Store. Neither of those are true.

The clear guidance for what is unreasonable is any amount above what

There was plenty of information given during the case to show that 27% was not a reasonable fee for linked-out purchases based on Apple’s “actual costs” to “ensure user security and privacy." So they can charge something, but it can't be a profit center. Apple will be given an opportunity to show the cost of maintaining the Apple Store and keeping it secure, which of course will be scrutinized.

My guess is it will be less than 5%, unless Apple does a good enough job lobbying.

No, it was no different with the US. This is an irrelevant story for the whole world outside of the US, because they have been living in this reality for 75+ years. The only nation who is feeling a new pain is the US.

Correct, the problem is that China is acting more like the US now. Which is more of a problem for the US than for other nations, because we have been taking advantage of our unique status to increase our standard of living at other nations' expense, and that will now be harder. You have it backwards about who should be worried about it. My guess is out of some misplaced feeling of hypocrisy.