I keep saying that "improving productivity in front of a bottleneck cannot increase output, although it may decrease it". A hard won insight from manufacturing which people for some reason resist applying to service and administrative jobs.

We had the ice cream barge and they did not

Think about how many military history positions vs. the popularity of those classes and the politics of that study.

Legislators cannot say software doesn't have expressive content when it clearly does, and throwing IP out the window would be bad (there's a reason we applied copyright to software)

The center squeeze is a real problem

These guys think they will never be held responsible, but to be blunt, I think it is only fair to let a jury decide that question.

Show 12 Americans in a jury box the face of a deported American citizen toddler and see what they think is justice.

One of the most important works in portfolio theory is a BA thesis!

/4 SO: this is a completely false description of fraud. What it is is laying the groundwork to belittle and demean and intimidate anyone who complaints about Social Security collapsing.

These people are absolute scum.

/3 So, for instance, those fraudsters who say “give us bitcoin or we will tell everyone you were viewing porn” [a common anonymous fraud demand] do not actually tell anyone anything, even if you don’t give them bitcoin, because that would draw attention and provide a way to be identified.

/2 In fact, a common element of fraud rings is that they consider certain types of losses as the cost of doing business. They avoid doing things like suing, complaining, threatening, and reporting when those things would draw more attention to their fraud, because that would interrupt the fraud.

But isn't the house committee immune under the speech and debate clause, and moreover even if not, what crime did they commit?

There is a lot Gavin Newsom has done wrong, including give national republicans a stick in the form of CalHSR to beat us with

IANAL: was the "File this action in the Court of Federal Claims" consistent with the precedent, or not really?

I can only imagine what happens when discussing the Cataline conspiracy and the fate of its leaders or Charles I.