The Internet is anonymous so that bigots don't know the gender of the poster, bro.

This is the exasperating part about learning to speak Spanish using a textbook; you must guess the grammar rules because the textbook won't tell you. So, you use the English rule and hope and pray that it is the same in Spanish, and you'll be right the majority of the time but often wrong. Spanish textbooks written 100 years ago tell you the grammar rules and are more useful than recent textbooks.

While interesting, I rarely found knowing grammar rules beyond some very basic ones to help all that much for learning to speak a language, compared to language exposure and speaking practice.

I would be very surprised if there was even a single natural language with a complete grammar that actually describes the spoken language. It's all just conventions. Lots of people confuse common patterns with rules.

I’ve noticed this too. Any idea why modern language books get this so wrong?

I call it theft when the government steals money from people without kids to enrich parents.

Government is not the solution, government is the problem. There is no such thing as a healthy functioning regulatory body - they all regulate too much and some should not exist. Don't call your legislator because the most dangerous words in the English language are, "I'm from the goevrnment and I'm here to help."

Nothing is 100%. Unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as unrestrained government. Balance is important.

The system you exist in today is heavily regulated. Perhaps over-regulated. But you don't want to live in an unregulated chaos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

At my state college in the 80's, most dorms and showers were unisex but I never saw anyone naked outside my dorm room.

Google: search, chrome, youtube

Microsoft: desktop software

Meta: social media

Maybe on some technical definitions of "monopoly" these aren't monopolies, but nothing remotely resembling a monopoly? come on maan

Monopolies being bad for free markets is a simplification. Substantial control over the market would be more accurate description of the issue.

In 2005, the CEO of Intel tried to buy Nvidia for $20b but the board vetoed his decision. The moral of the story is that the board's only tasks are to hire and fire the CEO. The board should not manage the company and they should fire the CEO when he makes a single extremely bad decision or set of smaller bad decisions.

That was even before CUDA.

It’s highly unlikely Nvidia would have taken the trajectory they did if Intel had purchased them, so not buying them mah have been a good decision for Intel as well.

Employers don't have all the power, employees do because they can quit and work for a competitor. All businesses must compete for employees.

No, this isn't true and it's especially not true when, as I mentioned, so many benefits are tied to employment.

Employers only have that power as a group. Any individual employer cannot kill any benefits if you change, or even have the option to change employer.

Really it's the government pushing very hard to force people to accept jobs.

That’s only true when there’s jobs available for the employees to move to.

Interest rates aren't high, they're manipulated by the government and they're too low. When businesses, governments, and individuals increase their borrowing, as they are now, that means that the cost of borrowing, the interest rate, is too low.

>When businesses, governments, and individuals increase their borrowing, as they are now, that means that the cost of borrowing, the interest rate, is too low.

That's not necessarily the case. Credit expansion comes with healthy growth as well.