triceratops

The article addresses that in the last couple of paragraphs.

"In effect, the administration is promoting European rearmament and European defense cooperation while simultaneously promoting politicians who oppose rearmament or defense cooperation."

Oracle the company filing for Chapter 11 protection doesn't mean Oracle the software stops running on all the machines it's installed on.

I don't think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanov says it's a surname, equivalent to "Johnson" (since Ivan is Slavic for John).

In the old days Johnson might've meant literally "son of John" but no longer. All of the people with the surname "Ivanov(a)" on that page also have a patronym, which in the West would be considered a middle name.

In my opinion that's very handwavey.

What definition is that?

The top 10% by wealth are responsible for 50% of consumer spending in the US. In 2020 it was only 43%.

They also own 87% of the stock market.

It's not a big logical leap.

Good point. I think Russian surnames are the same right? (Ivanov/Ivanova etc.)

Is it common in these cultures to use surnames as given names?

You'd think so, but Allison is firmly in the girls camp today, at least in the US (Liverpool FC's male goalkeeper Alisson Becker is Brazilian). Madison is also more associated with girls.

They go hand-in-hand. Surnames aren't gendered. Names that reverse gender are often surnames used as given names.

"John" or "Matthew" are probably never going to become female. Nor will "Elizabeth" or "Katherine" become male.

"Spencer" was male when Spencer Tracy was a big name. Today it could go either way. As a family name it relates to the profession of a steward.

Lindsey (as well as Ashley, Tracy, Kelly, among others) are all, I believe, last names that became given names. They skewed female over time because they end with a vowel.

Ashley Williams is the name of two American actresses as well as two male soccer players (Welsh and Liberian) and a male boxer (also Welsh).

Here's my favorite "Lauren"*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Bush

*solely because her legal, married name is Lauren Bush Lauren. She actually changed it, which is gold (and honestly very sweet).

We associate names ending with a vowel sound with the female gender. Other than that there's nothing gendered about "Hilary" as a first name.

Except in this case they say "No loan for you. But give us your car and we'll give you the money to pay off your debts."

> both?

I counted 4 things you could be under the influence of, not two.

> Energy buildout will be intentionally slow down through various mechanisms controlled by dems.

Why? Democrats still care about electrification because of climate change. If anything I think energy buildout will accelerate.

The rest is balanced on a knife edge.

Hence the "if".

I didn't advocate for propping up the stock market. I only disputed OP's assertion that a tech selloff wouldn't be so bad and wouldn't affect much else. This is what they said

> A crash in tech stocks will just cause investors to lose some wealth. Nobody depends on AI for core operations. Not yet at least.

"Top schools haven't added enough seats" isn't the same as "higher education hasn't expanded" though.

Ok but if they acknowledge it's an addiction, that's still a medical issue requiring treatment. Maybe that means going to food addiction anonymous meetings but if GLP-1 is like methadone for food, why not do it?

> higher education hasn't expanded availability with population growth

What are you basing this on? Has the ratio of available college intake to size of the potential student population (say ages 18-26) that has declined year over year?

I don't know about that. Consumer spending is being held up by stock market gains. And most of those gains are tech.

Is it "theft" when someone who pays off another's loans takes legal possession of the debtor's assets as compensation? Or only when the government does it?

> No, one would not normally acknowledge other people in a queue while waiting for a long time, not even with the slightest of pleasantries

Wow TIL.

"Talking to people" and "being talkative" are very different things though. Like you can't even ask people for directions in the Nordic wilderness?

Obviously you wouldn't speak to someone seated at another table at a restaurant. But what if you're waiting in line to be seated, and it's taking a while? It'd be "taboo" to even acknowledge other diners waiting with you?

Saying a few pleasantries and continuing about your day is not the same as socializing.

Like I said, prove me wrong.

> talking to total strangers on the trail (or in a restaurant, or in an art museum, etc.) has long been a taboo in some countries

Which ones? I'm really curious to know.

Chatting up women just to hit on them has become a no-no. And some conservative countries strongly restrict most opposite gender interactions between non-relatives.

Other than that, I really don't know where it's unacceptable to make polite conversation with strangers.

The US dollar is worth less than it was in part because the US economy has grown.

This is mathematically provable:

1. A dollar in 2008 could buy 1/14tn of the value created by the US economy (the GDP) in 2008.

2. A dollar today can only buy 1/32tn of the value created by the economy in 2025.

It's obvious a 2025-2026 dollar is worth less than a 2008 dollar. That's just math.

But. A dollar in 2008 could buy 230% more of the economy than it can today. And you say its purchasing power has only eroded 64%. That means the dollar is actually worth more today, compared to the size of the economy it's in. Weird, I know.

EDIT: I'm fine with downvotes but tell me why I'm wrong.

As the decades went by, people wanted the government to do more and more things and it needed more and more money to do it. Look how many more things the federal government does today versus when income tax was first introduced.

"Inflation brought everyone into the taxable income brackets" has very little to do with it. A significant portion of the population still doesn't make enough income to pay federal tax.

Taxes are unpopular. The government has no reason to "target everyone" because that's an easy way to get voted out.

Then you have to include the supply chain of the ICE vehicle too.

That people can't even afford to save up the few hundred dollars to buy a phone outright.