The important thing is that these things get funded. It doesn't matter what institute funds them. If an institute becomes stultified and corrupt, there's no reason to champion it over creating another.
That's true, but I have lots of experience with the NIH, and haven't found it stultified nor corrupted. In fact, did you hear they recently funded a project that reversed type 1 diabetes?
Besides what others have said, the government is immune from many of the multi-agent coordination problems that trap other types of entities. It's basically the essential reason we have government at all.
So no, not all things government does can be replaced by the private sector, for reasons of game theory.
It really does suck that US companies have belatedly figured out that demand is elastic and jacked up the prices. Where I live that happened long ago.
The thing is that he doesn't present any alternative. I know he's some variant of a communist, so does he suggest government control for everything? As if that solved anything? I guess what you find on empty market shelves is cheaper.
Truly a question - what's your solution? What's a solution? People have been arguing that everything is getting worse since forever. I've yet to see people organize and stop buying Pepsi or Coke. Should the government do it for them? Do you propose AI will solve the Socialist Calculation Problem? You're probably against AI as well...
Pepsi and Coke issue has been solved as there are multiple cola brands with store label or no label. You can buy cheaper cola and you do not need to buy Coke/Pepsi.
The direct fix is not that hard. I’m pretty sure the laws are already there, they just need to be used. Block mergers that create companies with massive market share. Break up monopolies. Severely punish price fixing.
The real question is, why doesn’t this happen? And answering that gets you to the real, difficult problem: the government doesn’t want to do these things because the government chiefly operates to serve the rich and powerful. Solving that is quite difficult indeed.
I think the classic suggestion is to breakup monopolies and block large mergers. We don't need to have people stop buying Pepsi or Coke, we need the company that sells Coke to not own a giant swath of the entire drink market.
Although specifically here, I think we need new regulations broadly banning the type of data broker price fixing that is discussed in this article.
Well, "win" as a noun is a word from Old English attested before 1150 [1].
And as a word firmly in the language it has its own specific uses in comparison to "victory". It would be silly or pompous to call a win in a sports game a "victory," for example. It would similarly be out of place to call a victory in a battle a win.
"Congrats *on the big win" doesn't sound out of place.
"Team A was victorious" doesn't sound out of place to me (ESL) though. Also pretty sure I've seen victory being used in a sense of "destroying the other team" - but I'm not defending its use.
The only reason this Ancient Greek definition holds is because it is a dead language. Prescriptivism cannot stop natural language change. Any "X should only mean Y" statement is a dead-end conservative approach.
Thankfully, none of us has had asthma. As far as anecdata:
The device does have a what-appears-to-be-accurate AQ (air quality) sensor on the side. In the presence of smoke, it turns red, cranks itself up, and then returns to blue (clearest) through purple over the course of some minutes. As such, I'd say that the "response curves" looked legit to my programmer brain, besides that the air certainly smells better.
I can definitely say, however, that -- having replaced the filters three times over these four years -- the HEPA layer (the inmost) definitely got brownish. Each 3-6 month pre-filter cleaning cycle had nice gradations of dust and stuff after each cleaning, sometimes a great deal if we were slacking.
Regardless, who knows what's been sucked into and blown through our ancient HVAC unit's ducts over these past decades, what with most people probably just buying the cheapest air filter possible? Why not err on the side of caution w/rt AQ?
Interesting point. I have $cheap brand air purifiers, and the filters never get that dirty—but we have radiant heating in the floors and no AC, so no ducts, so maybe that’s why?
I have allergies. I remember walking home from work one day thinking "Ah, my sinuses have cleared, the pollen must have finally gone." only to wake up the next morning all stuffed up again. Then it dawned upon me that work has HEPA filtered air, but my bedroom does not despite spending ~⅓ of my life there. Having an air purifier in my bedroom means I've avoided almost all symptoms of allergies for the last 5+ years without needing to resort to medication.
As usual, "Conjecture Presented as Fact in Headline"
They found a fabric in a royal tomb in Greece that fits the description of Alexander's famous sarapis.
What is more likely - that this is Alexander's sarapis itself or that a very rich guy had one made just like it?
> What is more likely - that this is Alexander's sarapis itself or that a very rich guy had one made just like it?
I read through the original article though not very closely, and the authors wrote that the construction of the sarapis was unique in that nobody would have been allowed to construct one, and that the physical construction of the sarapis would have been profoundly expensive.
It could be the case that another rich guy went and had one made, sure, but given the above two priors you'd have to answer:
Who else at the time could afford to have such a sarapis constructed?
Is there a record of anyone with a similarly designed and constructed sarapis? Historians seem to have a good idea of who was rich and/or noble in the area at the time.
If someone at the time constructed a similarly designed sarapis in the region, who would have built it and why wouldn't have someone basically told on them for trying to copy the God King?
I don't think your point is invalid, but it would raise more questions that as far as I'm aware there seems to be little evidence for and introduce impractical logistics for the time period.
I think people forget that in those times production was tightly controlled and most likely the construction of such a cloth without permissions would most likely be met with execution.
What's the logic of the first sentence? I can't parse it - is that it should be illegal for intelligence agents to be heads of state? Or is it that states with powerful armies shouldn't have former intelligence agents as heads of state? Or what?
As for the second question - why is every generation of the left charmed by a different set of psychopathic terrorist groups?
Makes sense. Now that the Graun's chief enemy is Israel and Colonialism, why not combine two favored targets into one hateful guy? I'm also pretty sure he was cis-gendered.
