If you’re capable of doing basic math in your head you should be able to handle it.

Even if you do a rough conversion - subtract 30 and divide in half you’re close enough.

Ask Vietnam, Philippines and other SE Asian country if they feel China is adhering to “international norms” when it comes to the 9 dash line.

I think the big difference is rule of law.

When the US does it, you can appeal with an independent court.

When China does it those options don’t exist.

A guy committing insider trading ain’t the same thing

> If AI is physically capable of misbehaving, it might ($$1)

This is why all the “AI Armageddon” talk seems to silly to me.

AI is only as destructive as the access you give it. Don’t give it access where it can harm and no harm will occur.

> Don’t give it access where it can harm and no harm will occur.

If only the entire population will comply.

Because government bureaucrats need to be let in on the take to make it worth their time. Graft is how that gets done. Otherwise they usually just stonewall housing.

Paying $1 to government shills and corrupt capitalists for every $1 spent on actual housing is still a hell of a deal compared to not being able to build anything, which is the status quo in many locked up parcels. A moral standoff and resting on your principles of not funding graft sounds nice, but doesn't accomplish anything.

>Paying $1 to government shills and corrupt capitalists for every $1

And then some forensic accounting happens and a paper is published citing that government built homes cost twice as much as privately built, and the program stops.

It doesn't seem to stop all the other graft-ridden wasteful parts of government.

Personally I despise the idea of public housing, but once something is there, it becomes easier to develop. There has to be some way of enticing all the factions stopping housing with productive greed rather than anti-productive greed. If public built housing gets something where there was nothing until the first paper gets published or whatever, maybe it's worth doing a deal with the devil.

If this trade is based on inside information, it would be on the Iranian side since it's timed on the IRGC's X post.

That seems like a smart move by Iran. Get rich off your own announcements.

That was my first thought, but it's also possible that diplomatic partners like Pakistan (and through them, the US) get notification of impending announcements. idk if Iranian government insiders/diplomats are legally able to trade futures due to sanctions.

Indeed! If you're around Taos, NM, there are several national/state parks that contain the remaining structures of the Pueblans.

The Puye Cliff Dwellings are over 1,000 year olds, and you can free roam most of them. It is quite wild being able to go into cave dwellings in the cliff. I'd highly recommend visiting if anyone is considering it.

If Amazon punishes sellers for having lower prices elsewhere, isn’t it the sellers choice whether to lower their price on Amazon OR raise their price for other sellers?

I didn’t see anything in the article suggesting Amazon ask for the 2nd option, just examples of sellers who did the 2nd one.

You are correct that the merchants have that choice.

Amazon's behavior is still anti-competitive. They are the big boys. The drive lots of volume, and have high fees. This policy makes it impractical for most vendors to support Amazon's competitors or compete with Amazon themselves. And it robs customers of a meaningful choice that would cut out an expensive middleman.

Without this policy, you might see lots of products on Amazon that are $19.99 with Amazon's 30% cut, and maybe $13.99 (30% less) on the vendor's own website. The consumer loses twice with Amazon's policy: once because they couldn't get the item at a cheaper price, and again because they didn't support any innovation or competition in the market, which would also lower prices.