Shareholders at which company?
With time comes distance. With distance comes perspective. With perspective comes wisdom.
255 followers 1,004 following 4,487 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Shareholders at which company?
The new 6:30 deadline is not for the government, it's for the plaintiffs.
"Voters can't be trusted to choose their leaders" is basis for all arguments against democracy.
(I suspect those restrictions were written into law back when Covid vaccines were scarce, so that pharmacists would triage their supplies per CDC guidance).
Note that the FDA doesn't regulate pharmacists. The only thing that stops Illinois pharmacists from providing Covid vaccines is Illinois state law, which mandates CDC compliance *only for Covid*. By repealing (10) and (11), Illinois could make its pharmacists fully independent of RFK.
Suppose your city banned asbestos in coffeeshops and grocery shops but not restaurants or bars. Someone complains that the ban is arbitrary and therefore illiberal. The city responds with an absolute ban on asbestos, everywhere. It's no longer arbitrary. Is that more liberal?
Wait can you elaborate the Italian cuisine part?
www.tiktok.com/@peteholmes/...
The simple solution is to get the vaccine from your doctor instead of CVS. Those state laws only regulate pharmacists.
Former vice presidents normally get six months of protection. So if presidents weren't allowed to make decisions regarding the duration of protection, then Harris would be losing it now anyway.
It shows who pays incentives in wellness programs. Source is Department of Labor www.dol.gov/agencies/ebs...
And the insurance company usually pays at least part of the incentive.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm not talking about exercise. I have to fill out a questionnaire regularly. If I'm getting enough preventative care, for example vaccines, then my insurance company gives me a discount.
Then why are they literally paying me to get preventative care?
In my state, pharmacists can give vaccines without regard to CDC guidelines.
No, not out of the goodness of their heart. They will cover vaccinations if they decide unvaccinated people hurt their bottom line. That's how insurance companies base their decisions. My insurance rewards me for exercise. Nobody forced it to do that. You think that's the goodness of their heart?
And you realize that nobody is obligated to change their policy after recommendations change, right?
Likewise, the federal government tells health insurers the MINIMUM they must cover, but it can't tell them not to cover something.
You have no idea what the CDC does, what the FDA does, or what doctors are allowed to do. The federal government advises doctors, but doctors are free to ignore the advice.
The government cannot stop your doctor from prescribing a vaccine, cannot stop a pharmacist from giving you a vaccine, cannot stop health insurance from paying for vaccines, and cannot stop you from getting a vaccine. All they've done is issue recommendations. Nobody has to listen to them.
Nobody knows what will happen in January.
The CDC has no power over doctors. They issue recommendations that doctors are free to ignore. In fact, the American Pediatrics Association (which also has no power over doctors) just issued recommendations that directly contradict the CDC.
If we're talking about vaccines, then we're talking about the FDA.
They haven't removed approval from Covid vaccines, either.
Ok, so Medicare covers cholesterol screening. A screening test is a test performed in healthy people before treatment. Medicare also covers B12 levels, when medically necessary. seniorsinfo.org/medicare-ins...
Do you remember when MAGA doctors were prescribing ivermectin for Covid in 2020? At the time, the FDA was absolutely against that. But they still couldn't stop doctors from prescribing it.
The FDA has no authority over health care providers. Zero.
The parameters are established by state governments, not the FDA.
www.reuters.com/business/hea...
www.medicare.gov/coverage/car...
Medicare does cover cholesterol screening.
Insurance companies may or may not pay for it. Most of them likely will pay, because unvaccinated patients hurt their bottom line.
That's not true. Pharmacists MAY be able to give it to you, depending on state law. This hasn't changed under Trump.
Trump can't audit health care providers. They are licensed and regulated by state governments, not the FDA.
Doctors can legally give it to you (or write a prescription to get it from a pharmacist), even if you don't have any of those conditions. And the out of pocket cost is closer to $200. www.singlecare.com/blog/covid-1...
Health care providers don't care about proof. They care about documentation. If you tell them you are a former smoker, they will check the "former smoker" box. Their CYA is officially done. They can give you the vaccine.
The FDA can't dictate how a medicine is used, they can only make recommendations. Doctors aren't required to listen. A few years ago, the FDA said ivermectin was not recommended for patients with Covid. That didn't stop some doctors from prescribing it.
Insurance companies don't have to reimburse, but they probably will. Because unvaccinated patients cost them money.
Because the Republicans control the order that nominations are voted on, and RFK Jr was placed near the top.
I know it's illegal on here to notice that our leaders are actually fighting back in the job we actually elected them to do, but here's the Wall Street Journal bitching about Schumer's "historic" delaying tactics that have left almost 90% of Trump appointee slots empty. archive.ph/2025.08.27-0...
Point being: "freedom of speech" does not mean manufacturers can escape liability if their product generates words.
OK, suppose you bought a device to monitor your home when you're away. In case of water leak it texts you "alert", otherwise it texts you a daily "all-clear". On vacation you receive only all-clears. Getting home, you see the house flooded. Is texting "all clear" protected speech, or a liability?
I expect them to contribute meaningfully to things that are likely to succeed. That's not unrealistic.
As I said, I think some people have unrealistic expectations.
Of course. That's why I don't complain when someone else doesn't do it for me.
Anyone can lead a protest, including you.
We don't pay them to organize protests.
If anything, I'd be *less* likely to go to a protest organized by elected leaders.
Yes, protests can do a lot. But they don't depend on leadership by members of Congress. Or even their participation.
Why lead a protest when they could send a strongly worded letter? They accomplish the same thing
Trump Tower is in downtown Chicago. Pritzker and Johnson have so many opportunities to do the funniest things...
There are certainly problems with our copyright laws, but forcing multimillion dollar AI companies to pay authors for work used in training is not one of those problems.
If at any time you possess an illegal copy, you are liable for infringement. It doesn't matter what happens to the copy later. So you can't photocopy a library book to make it into a papier-mache sculpture. Pulping doesn't "end" your liability. AI devs broke the law the moment they pirated books.
Nothing is illegal until a judge says it's illegal.
I suppose AI devs are now at the Find Out stage.
How could Democratic leaders successfully have stopped National Guard deployment in DC?
When do you suppose Democratic leaders could have successfully stopped RFK, but didn't try?
AI devs literally went to pirate websites. www.tomshardware.com/tech-industr...
Yes, you can read a legally accessible book in a library. But you can't make a copy of a library book. Not even with a photocopier in the library. And in the process of collecting training data, OpenAI made illegal copies of books.
They aren't doing nothing. They are doing the kinds of things that have a decent chance of success.
I think people have unrealistic expectations of what Democrats can meaningfully accomplish in their situation.
When it's a fight you can win, fighting is good. When it's a fight you are sure to lose, not so much.
"Why aren't Democrats demanding Lucy give them another chance at that football?"
Democrats can - and do - show what they are fighting for without setting up a showdown that they will lose. Texas Democrats showed what they were fighting for, and when they inevitably lost their showdown they were called cowards.
Why is a vote for impeachment better than a strongly worded letter? They both accomplish nothing.
I'm not blaming Democrats. There is a large constituency that say they want visible "action", but they get angry when visible action fails. So Democrat leaders are forced to avoid high risk actions and those doomed to fail.
One way or another, the authors were paid for the copy you read. Not so for the copies OpenAI read.
When Hillary tried and failed to stop Trump, Dem voters got angry at Hillary.
Those aren't free, the library paid for them and I pay for the library.
Dem voters have a history of being furious at politicians who try to stop Trump/MAGA and fail. They called the Texas Democrats cowards. They'll never forgive Merrick Garland. And they'll be angry when an RFK impeachment fails. So Dem politicians will only act when there's a good chance of success.
Their failure to repeal the ACA didn't do them any favors. In fact, Trump doesn't even want to talk about it any more. Republicans have focused on battles they they believe they will win.
Seems like a waste of effort in retrospect
The constituency that hates failure.
Why would I want them to do something that will inevitably fail?
The vast majority of words that are online are, in fact, copyrighted. For example, you have a copyright over the skeet I'm replying to, whether you realize it or not. And I have a copyright over this skeet that you just read.
I mean, corporate emails are considered "private", but if they are relevant to a lawsuit then they can be accessed by subpoena.
Piracy is not attracting massive investment from venture capital. That's the kind of thing many AI opponents are trying to stop.
If you pay a site to enforce copyright, you are paying it to enforce your copyright not that of a third party.
I can't read the works of Stephen King for free. Why can OpenAI?
You can't ban scraping the net for training, but you can make it very difficult to monetize models trained that way.
Why is the profit higher? They lowered their prices, after all.
How are their costs down, but not the prices they charge?
When prices go down with increased productivity, it's *because* of labor cuts. Even in a good economy. You hire 10 people to do what used to take 20. Having lowered your labor costs, you can now lower prices.
Yes, wages are sticky. That's why businesses generally prefer layoffs to wage cuts of any kind. And the next problem is investment. The average company will be worth a third less in 15 years. What kind of fool would invest their savings into such an economy?
If everyone's prices *and wages* are falling stably 2% per year, then discretionary spending is not going to change. And that's the scenario that somehow avoids layoffs.
You're assuming a business would not use layoffs when forced to reduce costs?
Exactly, a business can only survive by reducing its costs. In some cases, it might pay less for raw materials. But for most businesses, the biggest cost by far is not raw materials. It's labor. And the only way to reduce labor costs is to reduce wages or fire people.
The different answers are likely due to different definitions of money. Currency (M0) does not increase during lending Deposits (M1) does increase.
The only "reason" for the dual mandate is that Congress wanted the dual mandate. Let's just focus on the first steps in deflation: How can a business maintain revenue if it is forced to drop prices? How can a business keep paying workers if revenues fall?
Yes, lending causes an increase in the money supply. That's why it can cause inflation. And it doesn't matter whether your money is in a savings or checking account. The only thing that matters is that you gave it to a bank.
Only if they still have a job! And low prices make that much less likely.
Lower prices -> lower business revenue -> lower wages (or outright layoffs) to cut costs -> lower worker demand -> lower prices That's the classic deflationary spiral
It's not a one time hit, because interest rates persist. So there will be even more investment the following year, consuming yet more resources. The cycle ends when rates are increased again.
To elaborate: You deposit a $100 bill into your bank account. Your bank lends the bill to me. I give it to Bob in exchange for some work Bob deposits it into his account. There is still one $100 bill and $200 in deposits. Spending it on Bob didn't change anything.
It depends on how you define things. I'm not sure what you mean by "total dollars", "vault", "spending" etc So here's the usual example: You deposit a $100 bill into your bank account. Your bank lends the bill to me. I deposit it into my account. There is one $100 bill. There is $200 in deposits.
