If the train was privately owned, then it would handle the situation. Private businesses wouldn't let a few bad actors destroy the experience of using their services.

AKSHUALLY, let patients rate doctors. Or, more importantly, let patients pay more to the physicians they choose, and let those patients talk to each other about their results. You have your country do it your commie way, with its resumption of an "expert class" with infallible knowledge imposed upon the ignorant, and the rest of us will flee to the one where people dissent.

... to someone sufficiently intelligent. Educational attainment can correlate with this adaptability. Some argue IQ, measuring fluid intelligence, does as well. IQ is far less expensive to assess, but outlawed for hiring, because it's somehow deemed racist, incorrectly.

Don't say false when it's not actually false. The headline is about Caltech properly, not nationally. Many of us are aware of the fairly recent phenomenon of female approaching 2:1 academic dominance that's been going on nationally on average, but it's quite another thing at elite institutions with oddly perfect 1:1 balance where, as was widely reported in the recent Supreme Court case, how much affirmative action diversity acceptances really did change the goal posts based on things like ethnicity. It's not surprising given the comparative abandonment of boys that society has engaged in in recent decades, with educational and related institutions putting their define thumb on the scale to promote girl's development in STEM. As a male I was never explicitly targeted to do engineering but did it anyway, while we've practically begged our daughter to do STEM and have witnessed all the explicit institutional encouragement for girls in STEM. We also had to actively search for colleges that were not 2:1 female:male skewed, it seems almost everywhere, and it doesn't bode well for finding a spouse, which is where most educated people have their best shot at finding someone appropriate.

I think we need to accept that men and women really don't have identical interests on average, and really do want different things out of life.

The US had research collaborations with that Wuhan lab, so if COVID-19 can be linked to that lab, it threatens reputations, funding, and positions of anyone, including US researchers & politicians even tangentially involved.

What's being seized is information, which in 1787 was written on paper, but is now electronic. The constitution guarantees a warrant for such invasions of privacy, flouted by current practice.

"Textarea cache" extension for Firefox prevents exactly the kind of text loss you experienced.

This strikes me as a simple deep pockets argument, not an ethical argument. The person guilty of murder is not the knife maker. The person guilty of litter is not the paper maker. The person guilty of releasing carbon dioxide is the person who releases it, not the person who made the food (consumed by animals and humans) or fossil fuels (burned by consumers and coal fired electrical plants).

I was just reading earlier that there's now an expectation that profits will fall.

If the Fed instead targeted zero zero inflation, then wouldn't it be easier? I think the instability (variability) of inflation increases with the inflation target. Imagine a 20% inflation target (perhaps selected to make debts disappear quickly). It seems really unlikely that the Fed would be able to stay close to that figure. If the Fed targeted zero, then everyone would intuitively be able to help encourage it, because no calculation is required: there'd be a universal expectation that overall prices would stay the same in the long term. That's a form of feedback that would make the Fed's job easier, I think.

It's amazing that the US Constitution says nothing about purely speculative and creative works like fiction and visual imagery like movies, only science and "useful" arts (presumably trade methods). And yet most of the copyright value today is in fiction, and patent protection for ideas is thankfully short. I think we have strayed.

If I create some new incredibly useful invention, but keep it secret, by what right can you shake me down for it?

To have the biggest impact he shouldn't give the money away, but maximize its profit potential. Then in his will he should give his wealth to people who are likely to increase the profit even more.

More value will be derived if his wealth is all kept in the most promising investments, no consumed.

Um, no, progressive taxation doesn't "make sense". Why should someone who produces more be taxed at a higher rate? Why should a physician who did crazy hours in school get taxed at a higher rate than a dropout at McDonald's?

A limited liability company is not government protection or subsidy. "Limited liability" law could be replaced with private contracts, spelling out exactly who'll be paid what if the entity goes bust, including that the liability is limited to the original investment. Everyone dealing with the company implicitly knows this arrangement.

Bailouts are not part of limited liability. They're a political decision and they're disgusting. GM should have been allowed to fall.