What jumped out to you as weaselly? It read more like a blameless postmortem to me than weaseling around (unlike any of the recent big PII breaches), and they acknowledged that this needs to be something they respond more quickly to directly.
Thanks for the pointer. I'm going to blame my dad/up bringing for my over use of passive voice. He will be deeply amused by this. I will read the paper and attempt to improve.
The color graders here run 10-bit/color HDR monitors that have a wide gamut. Apple doesn't have monitors that support this. (The new one _might_ do the trick; we'll see.) Everyone here doing professional color work is on PCs supplied by Thinkmate. This is standard in Hollywood, too.
The OP simply misspelled 'principal'. By ">50% of principal" they meant that the interest paid over the life of the loan is more than 50% of the original loan amount.
The fact that you are stating something so easily disprovable, and that I'm getting down voted speaks volumes on the state of social acceptance of age discrimination.
I'll quote from the wikipedia:
"In the United States, a person must be aged 35 or over to be President or Vice President. To be a Senator, a person must be aged 30 or over. To be a Representative, a person must be aged 25 or older. This is specified in the U.S. Constitution. Most states in the U.S. also have age requirements for the offices of Governor, State Senator, and State Representative"
Also, let's be clear. Generally a Senator or Congressman has a long history of local public office before being a Senator or Congressman.
Young people are locked out of those offices until AT LEAST 30. That means, they start running for some small office in their mid 30s, to end in higher office at a much older age.
Imagine how you would feel towards a teenager who complained he or she couldn't run for president. Age doesn't necessitate wisdom, but wow are they positively correlated.
You know there are a ton of correlations related to race and gender.
I thought those were no longer valid to be applied to huge swaths of people as it is discriminatory. I mean, not everyone who is part of a race or gender will have that correlation applicable to themselves.
Yes, some teenagers are dumb. Most. I was. But I've meet teenagers that are way smarter than I'll ever be.
I'm afraid many people view discrimination from a situational ethics point of view; it's only discrimination if it is the type of discrimination they don't like. Otherwise, it isn't discrimination.
Which then raises the question: if a teenager has managed the extraordinary feat of becoming a viable candidate, then they're clearly an outlier, and whatever you think about teenagers in general may not apply to them. Alexander the Great was... 20 years old when he became king and 22 when he began his invasions.
I searched for "teenage kings" and found https://www.history.com/news/6-child-monarchs-who-changed-hi... . Ptolemy XIII, from age "11 or 12": seems to have screwed things up. Fulin / "Shunzhi Emperor", taking power at 12, seems to have done a decent job. Elagabalus, becoming Roman emperor in A.D. 218 at 15, screwed up horribly. Pharaoh Tutankhamen, starting at "9 or 10", seems to have done well. Mary, Queen of Scots... I don't see much about decisions she made during her reign; she seems to have been trampled by more powerful enemies without it being obviously her fault. Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, from age 15: seems he did well. Incidentally, all of the above died in their 20s or younger (except Mary, who was locked up for life in her 20s).
So that's two screw-ups, three did-well, and one don't-know. The article says "who changed history", which means something significant happened, which might give us a biased selection—in many professions, the easiest way to do something very significant is to mess up something critical. I wonder if someone has made a more extensive and non-selected list.
Regarding this particular set, I also might say we should compare Elagabalus with other Roman emperors in the 200s A.D.—I'd guess there are other stinkers on that list... Looking at the others in the Severan dynasty... Elagabalus was succeeded by Severus Alexander (age 14!), who apparently did whatever his mother recommended, and seems to have done ok-ish (though the army grew to hate him and eventually overthrew him). Before Elagabalus was Caracalla, who co-ruled with his father Septimus (who did very well) starting at age 10 (!) and became emperor at 23 (technically co-emperor with his brother, but he had his brother killed that year), and was awful.
Hmm, interesting. Unfortunately the Severans after Septimus were all young, which makes it hard to tell between "the Severans being too young made them suck" or "the Severans after Septimus sucked". Let's look at another Roman dynasty... the ones after the Severan seem too short and interrupted by weirdness to judge... Let's try Flavian. Vespasian began the line, was a military officer before he was emperor, and did well; Titus, his son (age 40, also already a military commander), did well (until he died of a fever); Domitian, Titus's brother (age 30), seems to have been effective though possibly tyrannical.
It seems a main lesson from the first bunch of Roman emperors was, if the emperor chooses a successor for reasons other than "family", things tend to go well; if there is automatic inheritance, it tends to go badly. But it also seems to go along somewhat with age: Caligula became emperor at 25, Nero at 17.
It's possible that there's unexpected wisdom in the age-35 rule. Still... If someone had been tutored from a young age by great teachers (Alexander the Great was apparently tutored until 16 by Aristotle), then managed to gain a few years' experience running a large chunk of a mid-size company (perhaps by a parent bringing them along to meetings, having staff explain things, then having the kid do research and come up with his own proposals that he delivers in meetings, and ultimately grow into some CxO role) and, by all accounts, running it extremely well; and finally managed to rise to national prominence by, I don't know, identifying a national crisis and getting several companies to work together to fix it, and everyone who's interacted with him says he's great; and if he did this all by the age of 19, would you think he's a worse candidate than the last several presidents of the U.S.?
I've meet people in their late 90s who have more wits than people in their 70s.
I've meet teenagers who were way wiser than adults.
I'm not sure why people are so afraid of letting things run on merit. Can things go wrong that way? Yes. But it's not like the other way is perfect either. And let's be clear, what you are advocating for is discrimination. I've found most people who advocate for that don't do so with intellectual honesty, they like to call it a 'requirement'.
Fair point, I am advocating that we discriminate against would-be presidential candidates below a Constitutional age limit.
In your opinion, at what age should we let people vote? Smoke? Drive? Sign contracts? Drink? Have consentual sex? Get married? Require them to be off their parents' health insurance? Permit catch-up retirement contributions? Allow tax-free withdrawals from IRAs? Allow claiming Social security? Etc.
It would only be fair that people who are subject to adult taxes, regulations and jail should be allowed to participate in the processes that subject them to involuntary actions (such as taxes and jail) - This doesn't only mean voting but being eligible to be voted for - After all taxation without representation was literally the rallying cry of our nations freedom.
Given what we have now, 18. Stupid 18 year olds you say? No problem they won't get elected. What if someone does? Well, then that person is clearly an extremely exceptional 18 year old and might be smarter than both you and I. Basically, meritocratic participation. I'm not sure how someone can argue against it.
Now, if you want to put in a requirement to have some level of public service experience before being president, that is not discriminatory, though it opens up a whole other can of worms - Personally I'm against this, but at least such a requirement would actually make sense in a meritocratic way, instead of just being silly ageist discrimination, which hopefully one day will be seen for being similar to other vile views like racism, sexism and classism.
The rest of your questions aren't really relevant to this point.
> The rest of your questions aren't really relevant to this point.
I disagree. We, as a society, discriminate on age in myriad structural ways because we believe that it is beneficial for both individuals and society as a whole.
Maybe there are exceptional 6-year-olds who should be able to smoke, drive automobiles, and collect Social Security. But I see no reason for our culture to permit them to do so, even if they landed a majority of the Electoral College.
No one is talking about 6 year olds smoking cigarttes. Only you.
We are talking about adults being treated like adults when it's in societies interest (pay taxes, go to war, go to jail), but not being treated like adults when it isn't (get elected) - This is an issue.
The issues you bring up don't cover this issue. These questions are a whatabboutism, bordering on trolling given the extremity.
Specifically, you are responding to the following comment, so any comment that is a sub of this comment is expected to be on topic, which you will see your smoking 6 years olds are most definitively not part of:
"Yeap, and legally enforced age discrimination means we can't actually take many offices.
We can vote for old farts. We just can't be elected.
Double think starts: But that isn't discrimination. Because it is legal. Instead it is called 'age of candidacy'."
-----
Whatabboutims works like this: Person 1 says "adults are being discriminated upon so they can't be part of the political process"
Person 2 doesn't agree, but has no argument. So person 2 states "But what about children smoking? what about pensions? what about..."
Person 2 isn't (an many times can't) answer the point, so they try to highlight that some similar issue is happening in some other place in a way to undermine Person 1's position. But in the end... Person 2 isn't addressing the issue being brought up.
Is there a solution to this "problem" that doesn't involve taking the hard-earned wealth away from people 55 and older who carefully planned and saved so they can enjoy themselves?
Yes, leave the hard-earned wealth and take away the grifted wealth from billionaires who got bailed out by the government and continue to be subsidized by the FED and the US taxpayer.
You say that, but the reality is that the 55 year olds are largely doing the opposite, taking from the young and healthy to support their Social Security benefits, their insurance, etc.
The 55 year olds aren't taking from the young via Social Security and Medicare, they already payed in and are still paying in. The 65+s also already payed in and they're just getting back what they paid for.
We have propaganda about things like this, but direct observation has been made over a number of decades and today's 55 year olds who will one day start collecting Social Security Retirement and/or begin benefitting more from their health insurance than they are paying in, are still not behaving very differently than 55 year olds at the time going back quite a bit into the previous century.
These are the 55 year olds who are still paying in to their respective Social Security and insurance plans, otherwise they would not be the ones that will receive significant benefits later.
Of course eventually as each individual reaches 65 and is eligible for full benefits, the true actual worth and buying power of those benefits has always been gradually declining.
To the point where you might have been better off without having these earnings immediately removed from your pay right off the top all along by the enforcing authorities.
And without having any need for a Social Security number.
The fundamental flaw with our Social Security is that the entire bureaucracy, infrastructure, business cash flow, collections & distributions is based on taxes on income rather than commerce.
Like a lot of things, but with SS it's even worse since only the lowest-income workers have their entire income taxed. As higher-earning pay levels are achieved, a decreasing percentage of earned income is taxed for SS purposes.
Regardless, with SS as one of the UBI systems with proven long-term functionality, it's too bad the full untaxed BI is still only universal for the 65 & over paid members in good standing, and only if they actually quit earning other income and truly retire.
And too bad it's not enough for a senior citizen to live on, so it's not up to quite basic levels but it's something.
This is because there are bigger tentacles that have been reaching into your pockets during your working years starting decades earlier in the 20th century than the FICA has been doing it.
If you do the math considering these resources, there is no excuse for not having gradually extended full benefits to much younger ages in a direct march toward full UBI. These have been the most highly productive hard working people in the most prosperous country in the modern history of my home planet.
Same with Medicare, it could have gradually reduced age of eligibility and achieved higher levels of health coverage for a more universal portion of the citizens far ahead of any less propsperous nation.
This all would have only required that an affordable portion of the resources were invested wisely to the advantage of the citizens from the outset, and only somewhat wisely at that. Markets can do amazing things, enough wealth was removed from working citizens before Nixon to have been leveraged to full UBI sometime between then & now, even using a no-brainer approach.
And when there's no excuse, you tend to get a lot of propaganda.
Even if you work for Apple, be careful about reality distortion effects.
