Thank you for posting this. These are the kinds of comments that we need more of on the internet. Ones that aren't afraid to push back on the errors of the hivemind, however justified the sentiment may be.
What is the unlikely scenario you're referring to? As far as I can tell, his assessment of the situation is correct. I'm not sure why you're so sure that the question was in bad faith.
Look I agree that these proceedings should move quickly to put Trump behind bars.
But... If I'm reading it correctly, that says that the accused has a right to a speedy trial, not the prosecution, which is what the above commenter asked for.
This is interesting to me though. Didn't most people (at least in developed countries) take tests in school? Get grades? I would think if you did below average on those you kind of....should know that you're in the bottom half?
I get that it's possible to make changes after schooling, and grades are only somewhat reliable (in that they also rely on effort) but still.
There may be other political parties but none of them have anywhere near the power of the CPC. They are all subordinate. For example, all election candidates must be approved by the CPC.
Also, the only direct elections in China are at the local level. At higher levels of government everything is chosen by local congresses. This results in a system where the people at the top are very removed from the votes of citizens.
Also, the national Congress largely exists to rubber-stamp whatever Xi Jinping wants. Any opposition would be swiftly stamped out.
China is effectively a dictatorship. It has one political party and Xi Jinping ended the two term limit so he could stay in power. What form of government would you say they have?
What makes it weird?
I believe we already do this to some extent. There are government funded grants for all kinds of things. I guess you just want more of that? I think you have to be careful, because that starts to look like the government picking a lot of winners and losers in private industry. Ripe for misallocation of resources.
The final summary of the article you linked:
"Using 105,950 observations from 32 different studies we find that CVC investments are performance enhancing, for both corporations and start-ups. Our results detect that time, country, and industry moderate the effects. Especially after the Dotcom bubble burst, high performance is detected. Similarly, the performance in the U.S. outreaches the performance of other countries. Due to the high risk of successfully developing a pharmaceutical drug, no statistically significant effect of CVC investments in the health care industry is observed. As expected, strategic performance outperforms financial impacts. Although there is good rationale for a clear strategic focus, the finding that CVC investment does not lead to stronger financial performance is surprising and urges practitioners to rethink their CVC objectives and approach"
Disregarding the fact that this is only looking at CVCs and not traditional VCs, I don't think this really supports your argument that it is a dice roll at best. Seems to me like it is broadly beneficial with some caveats.
Do you have a source for the claim that VC funded companies would have been replaced by equivalent companies if VCs did not exist? I find that somewhat hard to believe.
I don't have a good business idea, not everyone has to. That's not even what we're talking about.
VC is clearly not "a joke". All you have to do is Google "major companies that took VC funding" to see the impact of it. Of course this leaves out the thousands of others that failed, but long term the winners are going to have a very positive impact on driving innovation.
You may say "those companies would have succeeded anyway" and maybe so, but I doubt it would have happened nearly as fast, if at all.
This comment doesn't even pass the smell test.
If every company that took VC money failed, VCs wouldn't make any money.
The reality is MOST VC investments fail, but the few who make it are home runs. This is how they make money. The risk/reward of your company was just not a favorable investment for them. Whether it's because you went to an Ivy League or not is irrelevant.
Without VCs, many of those homeruns would never be able to get off the ground and the US economy would be significantly less dynamic
Maybe some well off black people wouldn't use the word, but it certainly would not be acceptable for any white person to use it in any context. Even if they grew up in "the hood" it would, at the very least, be frowned upon for them to say it. In many places it would earn them an immediate beat down.
I don't think you can really conclude that from the data.
I'm not sure I understand. Does war declaration being a state action require recognition the state of Palestine? Or can they declare war on "Hamas" or any other entity/group of people. Or do they even have to state who they are at war against? Can they just say "we are at war"?
Are you serious? Look at that map. Those yellow areas are absolutely massive. It includes huge swathes of suburban areas, not "dense cities". I mean look at Dallas, Atlanta, or SoCal in that pic. My point is that in those suburban areas most people are not within a reasonable walking distance of a grocery store.
Just because they're centered around a major metro area doesn't mean the people living there are close to one. I live in on of those cities in what someone would consider an "urban/suburban" area. For me to walk to my closest grocery store it would take me 30 minutes each way according to Google maps. That's not reasonable. Keep in mind that you've got to actually carry the groceries on the way back. And I'm probably in a denser area than most.
EDIT: According to the USDA, americans are on average 2.2 miles from a SNAP authorized store. That's a 45 minute walk each way. No Americans are not just "lazy" for not walking to the store. It just isn't a reasonable think to do at all.
In the US fraternities and sororities are not usually financial assistance organizations as you're describing. The main focus is just as a social organization. A quick and easy way to get 50 friends to hang out with. They also do sometimes provide connections or help with studying.
Also the EU is way less powerful over the individual EU countries than the US federal government is over the states.
It differes based on the sport. The NFL is the most "equal" between teams. It's nice because you don't have the same teams winning year after year. The worst teams get the best picks in the next draft, so theoretically they should get a boost (although some teams still manage to screw it up). In baseball, and to a lesser extent basketball, the "big market" cities tend to dominate the sport. Which sucks when you're rooting for a small market team that is always getting destroyed by the NY Yankees or the LA Dodgers.
I mean you don't walk....
If you were to walk it could literally be an hour walk or more for some people.