A dedicated warmer makes sense for restos, but if you're a home cook, just put the butcher paper wrapped brisket in an insulated cooler and let it sit. Nothing else is required (except maybe some kitchen towels. It will stay warm for hours, improving as it rests, and it is easy to take places as well. As OP said, good gloves are worth it.

My wife and I also went to the Mirage, had S&R tix, and were seated in the theater when when they announced that the show was cancelled. The substitute was a fantastic live performance by Bill Cosby, the memory of which is tarnished now for obvious reasons. I'm sad that I never got to see them live.

Option 3: Make the schools co-obligors on the debt. In a default, the school pays. I suggested that to a congressman once; he nearly spit out his drink.

I was thinking the same thing except maybe place it at 50% or something. So they still want to give out loans but are more judicious about it.

Also there might be scale correlated to market demand. So if doctors are in high demand the gov backs it more, if it’s something with little market demand, back it less.

Everyone passes all of their classes?

Easy classes and grading aren't going to help people not default.

The school can really only improve the education they provide or make their admissions more stringent. If they are going to do the latter, we might as well go back to direct government support, no need to have a loans process and all that noise.

It was re-removed: It was Apple’s second reversal on HKmap.live, which it initially rejected and then allowed to appear on its App Store. The latest about-face came after the People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper, said in a blog post this week that the app had “betrayed the feelings of the Chinese people.” The article accused the app’s anonymous developer of harboring malicious motives and queried whether Apple was an accomplice of “rioters.” Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/apple-pull...

. . . and the marketability and prestige of having Google on your resume.

Personally I would rather consider this to be a smudge on a resume, because for me it means, that that person worked for something, that is known to not be a force of good any longer, probably for money or wannabe fame "Hey, look, I worked at Google! Look how good I am!". Maybe it will work with HR people, but personally in my eyes Google on the resume disqualifies you from being hired.

To work at Google has to be an ethical decision by now. If you are not at Google internally working against its evil tactics subverting it wherever you can and work against its taking over the web, then you are probably working for the evil machinery. For an entity spying on people wherever it gets the chance, seducing uneducated people into helping them to track as many people as they can online and shred their privacy, while trying to come up with "new standards" all the time, trying to make others jump on the bandwagon to unfree Internet.

So in general, a person with ethical concerns should avoid working for Google, no matter how good the pay.

I largely agree, so I'd like to ask: do you hire people?

ANY sort of relevant engineering experience is good enough to get a great job in this industry.

Going out of your way to work for a mega-corp like Google is unnecessary.

Money isn't speech. The issue is to what extent your right to free speech is infringed by laws regulating how (or with whom) you use your money.

Perhaps an analogy will help. You have a right to travel freely. Imagine Congress passes a law banning the use of money to travel between the states. Money is not travel; yet, the law banning the use of money to travel certainly makes it difficult for you to exercise your travel rights.

Now substitute travel with abortion (for abortion rights supporters). Are abortion rights curtailed by this hypothetical law? Substitute travel with the purchase of firearms (for the NRA members out there). Is the right to bear arms infringed?

My examples are admittedly simplistic; yet, the point is that there can be a logical connection between the use of money and the exercise of a right -- including the right to free speech. The extent to which a restriction on the use of money infringes a right, and whether such an infringement is (a) allowed by the Constitution (b) wise as a matter of policy, is open to debate between reasonable people. However, simply stating that "Money IS speech" or "Money ISN'T speech" doesn't advance the conversation much, as your question rightly suggests.