They obviously know the reference, but are simply making a point that the broad sentiment toward CEOs would largely be appeased by other, less dramatic means.
If people have their legitimate claims paid in a reasonable time, and weren’t bombarded by gofundmes for people on their own for medical care, then they might be more empathetic toward health industry executives.
There’s no confusion over the subject, just an expectation that the current SCOTUS could play the “Constitution doesn’t apply if the mother had no legal standing to actually be in the US” argument. That technically that hasn’t been established, and that there’s an implicit expectation that people giving birth in the US are legally recognized to be in the US, and all bets are off if the mother isn’t legally allowed in the US but gives birth in the US anyway. To the extent they seek being explicit about legal standing, they may point to the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” words as stating an illegal presence means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the state.
I would think so.
For one they are likely very well equipped.
For another, it may be less about the troops themselves and more about the implications of what happens if you mess with American troops.
For example, read up on operation Paul Bunyan for an example of what happens when you mess with a seemingly manageable American force.
I did hear NPR at least clarify that it would not be a “department”, but instead just some advisory body.
They also pointed out that the closest analog would be the grace commission, but that was largely ignored in the end.
So they can make recommendations, but no authority to make them happen. Currently every sycophant Republican is talking up just how much they are in support of the vague concept of this body, but it’s quite likely that if they ever make specific recommendations, they are probably going to face much more rigorous objections. Republicans have a tendency to complain loudly about the abstract, but then not want to touch any specifics that might have blow back.
See also how they easily kept passing killing the ACA when they knew it would be vetoed and the second they actually knew it wouldn’t be vetoed they lost their appetite for it (admittedly they came close, but still it took them a long time to even try).
I want that to be true, but judging from their financials, their big problem send to be just massive costs. They have more revenue than AMD despite their technical challenges, but they spend way way more to get it.
Part of it is not having a lot of fab customers yet having their own fabs, part of it is a whole bunch of Intel projects you’ve never heard of that will never amount to anything, but still cost lots of money. Part of it is essentially bribing vendors to favor Intel products even as amd makes more sense in a lot of those products.
Better engineering would certainly help, but they are just bleeding money all over the place largely owing to bad business bets.
I will confess that I think making windows UI appropriate for tablet or phone has to be more than a skinning exercise. E.g. software interacting with a mouse pointer unable to deal with more vague and multiple touches. UI elements needing different spacing for the form factor. A different scheme for switching full screen tasks and recognizing that traditional windowing isn’t going to be very helpful in a smaller than 9" format.
Unfortunately windows basically favored touch at the expense of traditional desktop, when their home turf was very much not touch enabled.
3840x2440, 2560x1440, and 1920x1200. Wayland and all of them are probably just 60hz screens.
Yeah, I strongly suspect there was a camp within Microsoft that was 100% pushing for ‘rolling release’ model for the OS versus another traditionalist camp that said there would be new major upgrades. Further, I bet rather than reconciling those perspectives, they just let both camps continue on under their own assumption, until eventually the traditionalists won out and got ‘Windows 11’, finalizing which way the company was going to actually go.
The browser editions don’t quite fully work for everything.
A coworker manages to make some excel workbooks that just don’t work in the web version, and makes everyone deal with it.
I’ve had to contend with powerpoint decks with ‘features’ that don’t work in the web. For example, one group told me the only way to get a file was to click the embedded link in the pptx file, which only works with desktop version.
If you have to deal with Teams meetings with screen sharing, well, you can’t control the other person’s screen (for no good reason) and you can’t offer remote control of your own (ok, I understand that one).
I’ll say that 95% of my dealings with Office files can be dealt with between browser based O365 and libreoffice for some of those features, but once in a while I simply have to open desktop Office.
This is the perspective of someone who really dislikes Windows and is willing to deal with this sort of uncertainty to minimize Windows usage. Most people would just not want to futz with the options and go straight to the desktop client, which is the only thing that supports all the Office features.
But alas, Windows 8 was the ‘oh crap, tablets and phones might eat our lunch’ release and the focus was throwing the desktop/laptop experience under the bus to try to cater to sensibilities of markets they were never going to capture. Also, to have their own ‘app store’ to try to wrestle a google/apple like revenue model for applications running on the platform.
Windows ME was actually some Windows 2000 bits glued onto Windows 98. That’s why it was so terrible, it was kind of an afterthought when initial plans for ‘2k for everyone’ got abandoned as they realized the home app ecosystem needed more compatibility workarounds than they were prepared to offer. So instead of completing the 2k based product line, they just '2k’ed up Win98 to satisfy their then-current release cadence and make sure home market had a ‘current’ OS to go with the 2k professional line.
Note that my three monitor setup with an nvidia GPU actually works better in Linux.
Mainly because when I plug the laptop in, I have to turn the third monitor off and on again to make it ‘wake up’, but in Linux, all three reliably start displaying.
I was wondering about that. I just got forced to run native Windows 11 by work, and one monitor in my multihead setup just never wakes up automatically, but my Linux install on same hardware has no issue.
Yeah, as much as Windows feels… subpar for my day to day vanilla, it really turns crappy with my corporate’s mandated load. System is constantly chewing on some bloat from one of the various ‘security’, monitoring, or fix management solutions that they have on this.
Unfortunately, if a company pitches their extra crap as ‘enhancing security’, the execs just have to say yes, because to be an exec who ever said ‘no’ to more security is to put your job at peril. Even if three of that vendor’s competitors already got their equivalent solutions into the load already…
I’ll admit to some ‘asterisk’ to that.
So a developer evangelist said “because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we’re all still working on Windows 10”. So the media ran with the most intuitive interpretation of that language and expanded on it and declared that Microsoft was basically changing to a rolling release model. Note that folks say “he meant latest, not last”.
Meanwhile, Microsoft’s formal lifecycle statement said, from the onset, that it wasn’t going to be supported in 10 years.
However, Microsoft did nothing to clarify the rampant coverage. So I’m still on the side of “the popular impression among people was eternally supported rolling release”. Just acknowledging that, formally, they did designate 10 the same way they had designated previous versions.
Hence why they like to specify “rational” self interest.
no one’s trying to design a system against their own interests.
Well, to an extent that can be in a political philosophy.
Certainly rational self interest is factored in as to “affordability”. E.g. you support some benefit that you, personally, will never ever benefit from but it just seems the right thing to do, even if it may cost you 0.01% of your income, because that seems pretty affordable for someone else to benefit. Generally, people have voted explicitly against their self-interest.
Now the point can be made about welfare sorts of programs that it is a matter of self interest. That the small amount you lose in contributing is a small price for making everyone else contribute in case you need it. This case can be made for a lot of these scenarios, but the fact remains folks do vote against ‘rational’ self interest in various other ways.
Must have sucked to be his first wife, who wrote an article about how bad Musk was all the way back in 2010.