The article is using as a source a 4chan post that had a docket number that didn’t check out. I’m pretty sure this is a joke someone took seriously because they needed to publish something today.

This would get almost immediately dismissed by any judge.

The shareholders in question suing are a public employee retirement fund. I wouldn’t exactly consider retired sanitation workers and bureaucrats societal leeches, but to each their own I guess.

I’m genuinely not certain if you are meaning to reply to my comments because your replies don’t actually reflect what I’ve said. It is possible to have a larger discussion about a topic from a smaller example, and it’s also possible for things to not be all or nothing. I hope you can sort whatever bee is in your bonnet.

I’m not quite sure how you’ve turned “we should have the option” into “we should buy everything foreign.” I think you’re having an argument you want to have rather than addressing the point I was making.

Great, and where local is the best choice they should do that. But nobody can seriously argue that reducing the ability of government to shop around for the best cost/quality balance is a good thing. It’s not like the only options are buy everything American or everything from China. I’d like qualified experts making that decision, not legislators.

You create bad incentives if you artificially reduce competition like this. Not every good or service will have tons of American choices, so you end up with a handful of companies who know the government has no other choice.

I feel like all this is going to do is raise government costs and line the pockets of selected contractors. We aren’t always going to be the relative best producers in cost/quality balance for every product and service.

If we’re going to subsidize any industry, it should be done directly and explicitly. Otherwise, it becomes another example of “inefficient” government that should be privatized.

Marriage does not have to be religious, and it’s not exclusively religious in origin. Many millions of married yet irreligious people who had zero church involvement would take issue with that assertion.

I don’t see the point in doing this even if it was. It’s just semantics. We’d still need a legal shorthand for all the rights and responsibilities currently attached to marriage, as people would still want that. Then it’s just marriage by another name.

Also, I’m not sure any of these countries “force” any church to recognize a marriage they don’t agree with. That wouldn’t change, since I’m sure different churches would still disagree on which marriages count.

It has either gotten better or just improved its suggestions for me over time. I basically never get right wing content anymore. There’s plenty of garbage, but it’s stupid garbage rather than dangerous garbage.

Even if that were true, I fail to see how that would make it incorrect. And I don’t think it is. I’ve heard gift used that way my entire life, which I wish was only twenty years long so far. Perhaps it was regional until more recently.

About 400 years ago. Is this a really sly way of revealing you’re a vampire?

Gift has been used as a verb for the entire history of Modern English. Unless you are speaking Middle English, gift is equally correct.

This is a notoriously difficult thing to prove out either way in data, and I’m sure it varies situationally.

The Mariel Boatlift natural experiment did not demonstrate a decrease in wages or increase in unemployment. It makes sense: immigrants both work and consume (i.e., create demand). Unless every immigrant happens to work in the same industry/union, the sum total of immigrants may create demand for labor equal to or greater than they fill.

It also may have the impact you’re suggesting. But it doesn’t have to be zero sum. And, understandably, people only remember when they lost a job potentially tied to immigrant labor. Nobody asks if the job they’re applying to was created due to demand immigrants added to the economy (and how could a company know that?).

I really dislike how much he espouses hustle culture. Like, it’s crazy to applaud children who are spending every free minute they have on a business idea as if that has no negative impacts on their childhood if they aren’t failing school. Or that he won’t buy in if the business owner has a day job because entrepreneurs should only be successful if they gamble all of their savings apparently.

Exactly. If it’s a regulated industry, they’re not just paying for Teams. They’re paying for someone else to worry about meeting certain compliance requirements and take the heat if things go wrong. I’m not sure how many companies besides Microsoft can offer that. At most it’s a fraction of the available options.

Two points about R&D costs:

First, they aren’t just trying to make up what they spent on this treatment, but others that failed during research/trials. There’s a lot of them the general public will never hear about, and pharmas generally don’t like to bring attention to their failures. Part of that is many shareholders are morons who don’t understand how science works.

Second, the costs can get fuzzier for larger companies who in-house much of the R&D process, since the costs get shared among many programs. Properly attributing spend in that case can be a serious challenge.

All that said, they’ve clearly seen an opportunity to rake it in with this trendy drug and are charging way more than they need to.

The two Black Panther movies combined have grossed over 2 billion dollars. I wouldn’t say that agrees with him. It’s also odd to assume that movies which didn’t do as well, like The Marvels, were because of a female dominated cast and not because they were just bad movies.

Not being in constant contact with everyone you know, and not having a neverending stream of notifications assaulting you via your phone.

When you got to see relatives who lived far away, you talked about what had been going on in their life because you probably had no idea.

You read, listened to, or watched the news when you wanted to, unless someone you know told you sooner.

If you had to wait somewhere without a book or magazine, you just sat there with your thoughts. During childhood, you learned how to be bored and practice imagining things.

The only thing I can muster in their defense is that Outlook search is garbage, and filtering in Excel to find relevant messages may have been marginally easier. But that’s playing devil’s advocate and going out on a limb.

It was probably in response to some manager saying it’s not a good idea to keep documented agreements in email, so some genius thought putting those in an Excel and attaching to email was compliant with that idea.

I used to see this a lot when a team had to engage with an external vendor temporarily (or not so temporarily), but the only approved software both companies shared was Office before Teams was ubiquitous.

In the worst case, the file wasn’t able to be shared live (e.g., SharePoint), so it was just going back and forth in email attachments. That was just as much of a nightmare as you’d guess.

Check out their controversies section on Wikipedia. This doesn’t seem out of character for this publication. It’s more likely incompetence than malice.