Ten oz

It's a gamble. Sometimes partnering with them works.

As the largest asset holders (top 1% owns 50% of the entire market) they have the greatest influence over the price. This presumes selling is always the objective. Sometimes businesses look to reposition themselves long-term. They want mergers & acquisitions, layoffs, relocate facilities, etc. What is best through a 10yr period isn't always to maximize sells today. Selling Tesla's may not be part of Musk's 10yrs vision. Starlink, Space X, Twitter, and yet to be made/publicized investments might matter more to Musk. We don't know yet. Whatever Musk wants out of this endeavor hasn't been formally made clear yet. I suspect Musk gutting USAID and the The Dept of Education isn't actually important to Musk one way or the other. Musk and Trump routinely stiff their partners.

Recessions are good for people with the money to buy. During recessions the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to encourage spending. Low rates enable people to make enormous purchases and refinance existing debts. I think the public tends to mistakenly assume everyone benefits equally from the same set of economic conditions. That isn't the case. A recession would be welcomed by Musk, Theil, Andressen, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Trump, etc.

I don't any one disagrees that merit (experience, education, skill, ability, etc) should be determinant above race, gender, religion, etc. The exaggeration in the conversation is the suggestion that they is always an individual superior choice and that due to DEI that choice isn't selected. Provided all applicants meet the qualifications everything else is subjective. I think athletics drafts are a good analogy. Teams attempt to pick the absolutely best athlete they can find using stats, in-person workouts, and interviews. Yet some of the greater athletes in history were past over in favor of inferior ones. Pick the singular best person for something is actually very difficult. Yes, that is already the standard. You are saying it "should be" and it is. Individuals that meet the standards outlined for a position or role have the merit required. What gets wrestled with is the competition between greater leaves of merit. Which are seldom even applicable. Most of the time, provided everyone meets the minimum standards, enthusiasm is probably the best attribute. In society assumptions get made and we often look for the more perfect candidates. Amongst student athletes competing to be the Center on a basketball team the tallest athlete probably gets it. The assumption being height provides an advantage. Simply being the tallest is no guarantee of athletic ability though. It is just coaches playing the odds and being willing to invest more in one athlete over another. Height is merit if we are defining merit as earned skills and abilities. There are minimum standards. There aren't maximum standards. It's all subjective above the minimum standards. Some standards are arbitrary some are crucial. That is why standards are routinely updated and revised.

Greed doesn't require any greater ideology. Musk and Vance are simply trying to maximize their own wealth and influence. They are to self absorbed to care whether or not Trump is a Russian asset.

During Trump's first term 37 individuals were successfully prosecuted following an investigation into Russian influence/cooperation with Trump's 2016 campaign. Yes Trump is a narcissist and craves attention but those are no reason to dismiss the very real possibility that Trump is a Russian asset. No public figure in America has been of greater utility to Putin over the last 10yrs than Trump. in 2016 U.S. intelligence briefed then candidate Trump that Russia has hacked the DNC and was trying to manipulate the election. Trump responded by publicly insinuating that China might be responsible. This was years before JD Vance was involved in politics and before Elon Musk was publicly active in politics. Trump stood next to Putin in Helsinki, in his formal capacity as POTUS, and said he accepted Putin's word over that of U.S. Intelligence. As POTUS Trump attempt to extort Ukraine. Trump threatened to hold up weapons shipments unless Ukraine gave Trump propaganda against a political rival. That led to Trump's first impeachment. Now Trump has met with Putin to "negotiate" Ukraine's fate and Zelensky wasn't even invited. Trump brought Zelensky to DC with the expectation Zelensky would sign away mineral rights in trade for nothing. Just sign over Ukraine's domestic resources without any security assurance. Trump winked at the reporter who criticized Zelensky's attire and say by while his VP demanded Zelensky personally thank Trump. Trump calls it "The Russia Hoax" but I honestly cannot imagine what more a U.S. official could possibly do to appease Putin. Trump publicly discusses leaving NATO, praises Putin's strength, and is antagonistic to Putin's enemies. I think it is pretty clear that Trump is compromised to Putin. Trump isn't just some old man that likes to be flattered so he goes along with Musk & Vance. Trump has loyalty to Putin and is prepared to undermine U.S. interests for Putin.

This is often repeated by various pundits and analysts. I think perspectively it misunderstands the situation. Ukraine isn't attempting to gain anything or permanently defeat anyone. Ukraine is merely fighting (defensively) to exist. If Ukraine's goal was to topple the Kremlin and control Russia your assessment would be correct. However the opposite is happening. It is Russia who attempted to topple Kyiv. Russia claimed it would take 3 days. It has now been over 3yrs. It is Russia that can't win. Russia has been trying for 3yrs. Victory for Ukraine is if they continue to exist. That's it. To that end Ukraine is winning. Russia has lost 200k soldiers, 10k tanks, 20k armored vehicles, 400 planes, 300 helicopter, etc. Russia is losing resources and after 3yrs has failed to maintain any significant portions of Ukraine successfully. The war could end today if Russia simply agreed to stop. A diplomatic conclusion would be great. As you admit though it is unknown what Putin will agree to. Putin has had 3yrs to state his demands. Through his actions Putin's demands appear to be all of Ukraine.

In 2026 the World Cup is coming to the U.S.. Then in 2028 the Olympics. Two major international events during this current administration. I can think of few things that would make the U.S. a bigger target for an extremist attack then occupying the Gaza. Major international events with Millions of attendees mixed with highly charged and historically volatile foreign policy creates a serious domestic security challenge. I do not think its smart.

Which is why I said "Humans evolved eating insects, fish, and meat in addition to fruits and vegetables. It is natural for us to eat some amount of meat." My post wasn't attempting to imply one should be vegan.

The production of meat is inefficient and bad for the environment. The number of calories required to produce meat is greater than the number of calories one can get from eating said meat. Chicken, Cows, Pigs, etc require feed. So there are entire agricultural crops that need to exist to sustain meat. Meat is bad for the environment. Per calorie meat requires more land and more water while producing more climate harming byproducts. Run off from ranches also contaminate regional water supplies. With the above said I don't really have any opinions surrounding meat related to the Bible. Humans evolved eating insects, fish, and meat in addition to fruits and vegetables. It is natural for us to eat some amount of meat.

There are over 1.2 million people in Prison in the U.S. alone. I am sure some percentage of those people do not feel the conditions of their imprisonment were fair. Yet the general public probably wouldn't consider violence from those seeking to free themselves ethical. Violence to combat oppression is always tempting. Weighing ones own safety against the lives of others is complicated. As it applies to govts, provided elections are fair, violence isn't ethical. Also the definition of a fair elections should be broad rather than narrow. Humans are a social species. Cooperation is a must for long term survival. As such we should tolerate a modicum of nonsense from each other.

Rand Paul's medical experience/education is in ophthalmology. Fauci has been working in immunosuppression for over 40's have initially started working for National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 1980. Paul doesn't have the background to make any claims about which unknown places (Paul himself admits he doesn't know) covid19 may have come from. In terms of discipline, experience and comprehension of data Fauci is the one in a position to set the odds.

Criticizing the scientific community broadly does not lend any credibility to J. Allen Hynek. Proof of alien life on Earth needs to exist on its own merits. Being skeptical of individuals is not evidence of anything.

What businesses can and cannot afford to pay people seems to monopolizes wage discussions in the media. Some point to wealthy people owning $100 million estates as proof there is plenty of money to go around while other insist the cost of higher wages will seemly be passed on to consumers. Such discussion ignores other key factors. Three of those factors that come to my mind are: Govt's cost, impact of economy as a whole, competitiveness among the market place. Govt costs. The more one earns the more taxes they pay. Not merely federal income and Soc Sec but local taxes as well. People who earn more also generally tend to spend more and numerous taxes are attached to consumption. So govts from local municipalities up benefit from residents who earn more money. With the right leadership that can translates into better infrastructure, public education, policing, parks, etc. On the flip side low income residents are very expensive for govts. Lower income residents are less like to invest in the community, more likely to require public assistance services, etc. Every business with low watch employees whom need govt assisted food, house, healthcare, etc programs is basically using those govt programs to supplement their (businesses) low pay. Impact on the economy. Consumer Spending is 70% of GDP in the U.S.. That is why stimulus is so broadly accepted across party lines. Both major parties engage in various types of stimulus packages whenever the economy slows. People having money to spend, even if that money creates debt, is the most reliable way to lift the economy. Having enough to buy homes, cars, clothes, dine out, etc spurs economic growth. The same Restaurant that may not want to pay their employees $15hr would arguable have more costumers overall if everyone in their community made at least $15hr. Competitiveness among the market place. By favoring business cost related arguments over those of voters Politicians run the risk artificially subsidizing a non-competitive business at the expense of their constituents. The govt has a role in ensuring markets are fair helping the economy where they can. Propping up certain business over others or the will voters isn't that role. In a market place where residents support and vote to have $15hr business unable to compete at that salary point will be replaced by ones who can in theory. Especially if consumer spending grows along with the increase in wages.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/