I’d prefer that psychiatrist professional opinions stay out of politics, as they will certainly be weaponized, turned partisan, and tarnish the field. There are numerous reports from people that have actually met him in private describing his public persona as a theatrical showman.
> The President was not examined face to face, and he is not a patient of any member of our group. Rendering a formal diagnosis in this case is not our role. We have closely followed his behavior and his statements over the past year.
> It is our professional opinion that the behaviors of Donald Trump, tragically, are neither momentary lapses nor political theater. It is our professional opinion that they reflect a rapidly worsening, reality-untethered, increasingly dangerous decline.
> However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.
This is a great way to sidestep the political process to fund popular projects. The political constraints will ensure returns are middling, so unless they subsidize with tax breaks on dividend income I think it would be a poor commercial investment.
Whether its perfect or not, it almost has to be better than the current status quo.
You’ve always been able to install and use without an account (oobe\bypassnro). As long as power users and businesses can avoid it, they have no real incentive to change.
The peak was right before they launched marketplace in my opinion (2013?). After that they had no incentive to improve Jira/Confluence, easier to take the marketplace cut. I could never understand why they couldn’t solve the speed issues though. It just got worse and worse.
Important to note their findings only apply to a smaller subset of people, and do not include those with the most need.
> The findings of the pilot project will be generalizable not to the entire German population, but to 21- to 40-year-old individuals in single-person households with middle incomes.
The reason:
> We were thus faced with the decision of selecting 122 people who represented the entire country but did not provide scientifically reliable data on the effects of a basic income, or selecting 122 people from a more limited group from whom we could draw definitive conclusions. In the end, we chose the latter.
It was dramatic and started just a few hours after the first dose. I was worsening all morning and by mid afternoon a reversal, coinciding with the Paxlovid side effects. It wasn’t an overnight thing where rest was a factor, I was awake and bedridden. So I’m pretty convinced, enough to drop $1,500 retail if need be in the future for it.
It worked extremely fast for me, I took it within 16 hours of symptoms that were increasing rapidly. Within 6-8 hours I started feeling much better, instead just dealing with the Paxlovid side effects. I don’t think my body fought off Covid that fast. Anecdotal of course, but I’d take it again in a heartbeat. I did get a rebound infection the next week but I couldn’t feel it, just tested positive for a couple days.
It’s the same in both, it was deliberate. Wikipedia lists a potential reason.
> The title “Wolfs”, a grammatically incorrect plural of Wolf, is an apparent reference to the character of Winston Wolfe (aka “Mr Wolf”) - an iconic “fixer” in the Quentin Tarantino film Pulp Fiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfs_(film)
UPs refers to it as “Lunar New Year holidays” on the website I linked, probably because it’s more than just China. You’re right though, I should have been more clear.
Wouldn’t this be due to the Lunar New Year, a massive holiday that shuts down wide swaths of the country? UPS has a bunch of Asia delays right now too.
It took the use of poison gas to get countries on board, and some will still use it. Just more carefully.
Would China, Russia, or Iran agree to such a preemptive AI weapons ban? Doubtful, it’s their chance to close the gap. I’m onboard if so, but I don’t see anything happening on that front until well after they start dominating the landscape.
It would help solve bots absolutely, but there are other ways to approach fraudulent activity. I don’t see a huge downside personally, but I’m not in the industry. Given it’s a large, competitive market and this change appears revenue neutral, I think there must be underlying reasons neither of us are aware of.
If the majority of artists and labels wanted this system I don’t see why they couldn’t lobby and negotiate for it?
So each listen would have a variable payout depending on how much else you listened to that month? If you only listened to 1 song, the rights holder would receive all of your monthly payment (sans Spotify’s cut)?
That seems overly complex and more volatile. My guess is that there is no pressure from the artists or rights holders to do this. It’s revenue neutral for Spotify after all. Tidal is the most “artist-friendly” service and they don’t work like that.
> The President was not examined face to face, and he is not a patient of any member of our group. Rendering a formal diagnosis in this case is not our role. We have closely followed his behavior and his statements over the past year.
> It is our professional opinion that the behaviors of Donald Trump, tragically, are neither momentary lapses nor political theater. It is our professional opinion that they reflect a rapidly worsening, reality-untethered, increasingly dangerous decline.
https://www.congress.gov/119/crec/2026/04/30/172/76/CREC-202...
> However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule