But we are in the USA, where the majority of convicted criminals were never proven guilty because the system relies on coercing them into not going to trial.

Ok so now that crime is lower can we blame them?

Good for them. I’m willing to let them off easy to incentivize lower cost cars in general.

No it isn't, because in the context of the comment it should be read "people with experience and/or credentials desired [...] are always in high demand " regardless of their actual performance level.

Can you explain what background knowledge I need to be terrified looking at the second one?

it is a tool that shows daily snap shots of the SST to use it you need to have a good grasp on geography/oceanography, and then spen a bit of time each day looking at it, and cross corelating with things like hurricanes, to see the trace spiral of cooler water that a giant storm will imprint into the oceans surface, or this year, the very significant chanhes in the worlds major hot and cold currents, and size of the spill over from the south wester pacific into the atlantic.

But that's nothing to do with the comparison he made, which was "at 3-person startup"

I have never had a dog and I have still picked up hot dog poop just from walking a relative’s dog. I assume you have yours toilet trained.

That doesn’t make sense - private equity has done the same thing in completely orthogonal industries, like manufacturing.

> If everything is political the label of “political” has no power for discernment, no ability to meaningfully partition the semantic space. It’s logically bunk, mathematically superfluous.

Exactly. Strange how the author just says this and immediately moves to pretending it isn’t true.

Presumably the author does not agree with the premise that everything is political.

The author then has a lot of evidence to overturn that social interaction is not political, and then must go even further to define what they thing politics is.

They do define what they think politics is. The article defines politics as exerting your will on others without consent. Thus, it's trivially zero-sum and we would probably all agree that it's not conducive to enjoyable spaces.

The main issue is that it's just a stupid definition. Politics in this sense is just one kind of violence. Most of the things we'd consider colloquially "political" don't meet this definition. Worse, many of the arguments that follow partially dispense with the given definition and unintentionally incorporate the author's implicit idea of "politics" (a separate thing), which makes it a bit confusing to read as a precise argument.

Sure, but do they read them for fun? Would they choose them over a paper book in color? There's no point providing every kid with something they don't want. Making them available, perhaps.