tburkhol

A self--described Zionist turning down AIPAC money seems like he was going to do what they want, anyway, and just wants AIPAC to spend their money on candidates who need to be bought.

I think https://progressquest.com/ is still going

Probably unrelated to the 2+% drop in stock markets when he hypes up an armageddon, or the 2+% rise when he calls it off.

A records return the numerical address of a name.

CNAME returns a different name for a name. Basically 'synonym' so the maintainer only has to change the one master, A record when the IP address changes. Convenient to use CNAME to point www.example.com to example.com, but you can use it just as well to point example.com at my.private.host.xyz You can even chain multiple CNAMEs to make it easier to manage a complex backend structure while presenting a simple address to users.

Lots of phrases get distorted by journalists and activists who don't bother to learn their correct use and just go by vibe. "Begs the question" is beyond recovery, but 'centimillionaire' makes as much sense as '600% discount.' 80% of people ignore any statement containing a number, so the subtle difference between hundred and hundredth is hard to convey.

Charles Darwin would not play football on a centi-meter long field.

Just a nit: centi- means 10^-2^, so centimillion would be 10,000.

Hecto- is 10^+2^

Here in Georgia (US), as recently as last summer, there was tons of wildlife noise when I'd open my windows at night. I couldn't Identify most of it...just your usual call-and-response mating behavior, an owl once in a while. This year, it's just dead silent. Daytime is almost as striking, but that's because last year was locusts.

The US spent a lot of money on soft power, essentially bribing countries to go along with their agenda. Much of that money did actually improve people's lives, whether it was food aid, vaccinations, or AIDS care. Sure, it was to further their own objectives. Sure, it's mostly because it's cheaper to buy compliance than to bomb people into compliance. Humanitarian aid with strings attached is still humanitarian aid, though, or the collapse of USAID wouldn't be such a problem.

In Alabama, when they were considering bans on youth transgender therapy, one of the GOP senators made them do a study. It turned out that over the past decade there were, on average, something like 5 minors undergoing any kind of gender-affirming treatment. 5. In the whole state of Alabama. They decided it wasn't worth implementing a whole government oversight system to oppress that few people.

Now think about how many of the people, under 18, are both self-aware enough to realize they're trans-fem (because no one raises a fuss about trans-masc athletes) and super excited about competing in women's sports. We are talking about a handful of people across the whole country.

And that's what makes them such a great wedge issue for the right. Essentially no one has personally encountered a transgender youth athlete, so they can make up whatever stories they like, based on "sounds reasonable."

Meanwhile, competitive sport is essentially all about rewarding genetic freaks. People with some gene mutation that lets their muscles work faster, lets their blood carry more oxygen, lets the build mass faster. If you worry about the biological advantage that a chemically suppressed hormone might have, you're starting down a path where you have to police what other biological traits might give someone advantage. It'll be "too tall to compete in basketball."

Those universities are gambling thousands of current-revenue tuition dollars on millions of future-revenue philanthropy. The odds are good on a J-Lo level prospect.

Workers feel responsibility for the people under their care. Bosses exploit their guilt over untended people to reduce wages.

The very broad funds definitely will - VTI/VTSAX - but at lower weights and under less time pressure than the rigid index funds (VOO/VFIAX). That takes off a lot of the liquidity squeeze and (presumably) reduces their loss.

But you have to remember that people who use these funds intentionally invest in obvious losers and willingly overpay for hyped stocks because they believe, in the long run, that buying obvious losers is more than balanced by also buying the unexpected winners.

SpaceX is just the first time an oligarch tried so obviously to rig the passive investor structure to his favor, and I'm glad the S&P people didn't cave.