dazilcher
Joined 9 years ago
Joined 9 years ago
To be fair, the article does not assume that: it analyzes potential next moves and concludes that a certain outcome is inevitable.
To harp on the chess metaphor, most games are conceded when the result becomes obvious, before reaching literal checkmate.
Whether the analysis is accurate is a separate conversation.
Whether they did or not is almost irrelevant: information doesn't reach humans instantaneously, it takes time to propagate through channels with varying latency, it gets amplified/muted depending on media bias, people generally have things going on in life other than staying glued to new sources, etc.
If you take a cross sample you're guaranteed to observe contradictory "parallel" information even if the source is serially consistent.
When I'm drinking my coffee I focus on enjoying the palate, when I'm reading I am laser-focused on processing and retaining information.
Multitasking prevents me from attaining the full benefits of these exquisite activities. If need a mindless task while I'm sipping my morning brew I can always count primes backwards or stare at the other hipster in the coffee shop.
Can you explain the magical supply chain adjustment that will lower prices after a year?
I don't see how this can be blamed on DOGE. If anything it shows that DOGE employees are closely monitored, and their access is minimized and audited.
https://www.zetter-zeroday.com/court-documents-shed-new-ligh...
... the federal award, approved in September 2022, had initially listed a total value of $8 billion. But on Jan. 22 this year, that figure was updated to $8 million.
DOGE involvement aside, that right there is not exactly the exculpatory evidence NY Times thinks it is.
Please elaborate.