That's the experience of centuries, though I'd alter that to say taxing capitalists too much = no jobs. Clearly you need some taxation, but once you go too far you throttle your economy. They used to call that the Laffer Curve, and the vast majority of economists agree it exists even if they don't agree on the shape.
At one place I worked, the two releases that made us the most nervous went out on Friday the 13th, and Halloween (IIRC). The reasons that they made us nervous had nothing to do with the release dates. We were nervous that what we did had hidden bugs, and even after testing, we were still somewhat nervous.
I want to hear what you have to say. I want to hear from a human mind and heart. I don't give a rip what AI has to say.
AI may say it "better". But I can't read AI writing, because there's nobody there. There's not a mind that I can understand what it's thinking. I can't relate to it at all.
Fox News says that Markwayne Mullin says that the FAA says that it's not a cyberattack, and it's not something like 911. Just heard that, don't have a page to point to at the moment...
When the system is held together with chewing gum and 1980s-era software, when it fails, "someone screws up" is not a fair reaction. Of course it fails! The wonder is that it still mostly works.
A lot of very hardworking people getting too little pay for something so critical while their employers (some contracting company) take a lot of profit. Eventually they burn out waiting for help and a replacement system and retire or quit, then the systems really start failing because the knowledge leaves with them.
> Oh, and now we have the party that doesn't know how to balance a checkbook coming into (some) power to further exacerbate the whole thing
After the Big Beautiful Bill, I think that "the party that doesn't know how to balance a checkbook" may have switched sides. (I mean, the Democrats didn't learn how, but the Republicans drastically forgot.)
You're totally right, of course. I wrote it in an attempt to "both sides" it but that one line caused the rest of what I wrote to be completely discounted. To double down on the comment about democrats, though, there's obviously a lot of conversation about increasing spending (e.g., Medicare for All and less-tectonic items like reintroducing health care subsidies) and with Trump in the White House nothing is going to happen on the increasing revenue side of things and so we have at least another two years of both rampant spending, and continued giveaways to those who can afford to give (some of it) back, a cocktail for even more inflation.
If I recall correctly, the court ruled that the way Trump was doing them was illegal. So Trump started doing them via a different mechanism (or stated legal rationale, or something), and as far as I know the courts have not yet ruled on that new approach.
I don't know if the new Congress is going to be able to put a stop to this.
reply