Your definition of an expat matches undocumented immigrants from Latin America to the US perfectly, and yet somehow the word is never used in that context.
How come a person living abroad is an expat only if they are white and an immigrant if they are not? I would expect better from the NYT... How about "undocumented Mexican expats" for a change?
Click-bait alert! It's not "federal data breach" (it's UnitedHealth, not gov't), and it happened 2 years ago. This fits the pattern of other "news" articles from the same site, see https://morningoverview.com/russian-satellite-shatters-into-... dated Feb 24, 2026, which reports on the Russian test from 2021(!).
I am sure if she could pull the wool of JP Morgan's eyes, she could convince Scientist-1 that it was legit. "I want to expense it under Marketing not R&D, which would let us pay you more. My CPA's eyes glaze over, can you uplevel it?" or something
No, not for international students. Stanford (I haven't checked others) is very explicit about having a limited number of scholarship for international students: https://financialaid.stanford.edu/undergrad/how/internationa.... Admissions for US applicants are indeed need-blind.
Do I think it's the best use of taxpayers' dollars (ie, mine) to screen for objectionable content on social media? No.
Do I trust the government to police opinions? No, especially when there's no accountability and appeals process.
Do I believe the overall benefits that harassment-free international travel brings to this country outweigh the costs of letting in some visitors whose views I disagree with? Yes.
> in Australia where individuals are expected to fund their own retirement,
I'm looking at the official statistics, and this is not what they say:
The government pension is the main source of income for 47% of retirees vs superannuation's 33%. Moreover, the proportion of those relying on the pension has increased between 2020 and 2022 by 3 pts.
> That reads like ww2 german propaganda. What did you expect. People in moscow to starve also? "Lashings of caviar"? Give me a break.
For better or worse, anecdotes of the caviar delivered by the crates to the top party officials appear in many Russian sources. I don't know whether independent historians confirmed these stories but they are believed by many. For very good reasons, since this is what the party did all along - it's the brutal conditions outside the party HQ in Leningrad that make these anecdotes especially poignant.
> Also, once the soviets repelled the german attack on moscow, didn't the soviets liberate leningrad?
Not until more than two years later. (It was not for the lack of trying - in 1942 an unsuccessful operation led to a complete loss of two full armies.)
It's not about front-running investments _in_ passive index funds, it's about front-running investments _by_ passive index funds, which, of course, ultimately comes out of the investors' wallets.
As a practical matter, since dealing in mutual funds' shares is settled after market, "front running" these transactions would be problematic. (Impossible, I'd say?)
_Workshop_ is definitely a verb, as in "workshopping a play". Its meaning in performance arts is different from office use, but they are not too far apart.
I think the portfolio argument is an unnecessary detour though. There's a two-line proof by induction.
1. The payoff in the base case of (0,1) or (1,0) is 2.
2. If we are at (r,b), r >=b , have $X, and stake (r-b)/(r+b) on red, the payoff if we draw red and win is X * (1+(r-b)/(r+b)) * 2^(r+b-1) / (r+b-1 choose r-1) = X * 2^(r+b) * r / ((r+b) * (r+b-1 choose r-1)) = X * 2^(r+b) / (r+b choose r).
Similarly, if we draw black and lose, the payoff is X * (1-(r-b)/(r+b)) * 2^(r+b-1) / (r+b-1 choose r) = X * 2^(r+b) * b / ((r+b) * (r+b-1 choose r)) = X * 2^(r+b) / (r+b choose r). QED
> Oh yeah, and that anecdote you told about tectonic plates screams survivorship bias; that's the problem with anecdotes.
Very good point. For every tectonic plates theory or heliocentric system or H. pylori causing ulcers there are thousands of claims that are plain wrong. Statistically speaking, knowledgeable critics acting in good faith (eg, not having strong conflict of interests) are correct with the overwhelming probability.