Saturday: Hili dialogue

August 9, 2025 • 6:45 am

Welcome to CaturSaturday, August 9, 2025, and shabbos for Jewish cats. It is also National Rice Pudding Day, my third favorite pudding after Indian pudding and sticky toffee pudding. And rice pudding is the easiest of these to make. Who would have thought to make a pudding with rice? Why not make one with pasta? Still, rice pudding without cardamom is like a day without cats.  Here is kheer, or Indian rice pudding, which always has cardamom and they do no stint on the cream, either::

Creative Commons Attribution: Share Alike 4.0 International  International license.

It’s also Book Lovers Day, National Bowling Day, National Polka Day, and National Hand Holding Day.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the August 9 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*Trump is now going to examine every American university’s admissions criteria, concentrating on race. (See also here.)

President Trump on Thursday ordered his Education Department to collect data on the race, gender, test scores and grade point averages of college applicants in an effort to scrutinize whether universities are giving minorities preference in admissions.

The move would provide the government with information that has long been on the wish list of conservative activists in search of evidence that schools have been dodging a 2023 Supreme Court decision that largely barred the consideration of race in college admissions. Admissions data has increasingly become a focus of the Trump administration as part of its effort to shift the ideological balance of academia, which the president views as hostile to conservatives.

Some legal experts say the new requirements may have a chilling effect on universities, which are still allowed to consider race as part of a holistic review of a student’s application that takes into account qualifications beyond test scores.

Justin Driver, a Yale Law School professor, said the changes were “another catastrophic blow in the Trump administration’s ongoing assault on American higher education.”

“It signals the Trump administration’s efforts to depress Black and brown enrollment, and intimidate universities into decreasing Black and brown enrollment,” said Mr. Driver, author of “The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court and the Future of Higher Education.”

Some of Mr. Trump’s moves against colleges and universities have prompted swift legal challenges from opponents who accused the administration of skirting or ignoring laws, like Harvard University’s lawsuit over billions of dollars in stripped research funding.

But Thursday’s directive involved a data collection system that federal law gives the Education Department wide latitude to control and that schools, as a condition of joining student aid programs, agree to supply with information. Still, Mr. Trump’s move on Thursday could eventually invite legal challenges, perhaps on the basis of the federal student privacy law, that might slow or stall the president’s instructions.

How you feel about this depends on whether you think ethnicity should be taken into account at all for college admission. I’ve gone back and forth on this, and right now think that it should when dealing with candidates that are equally qualified.  In such cases, giving a preference to a minority who really is part of a group that suffered from oppression (no rich Spaniards!) is okay. But even that is forbidden under these new rules, as the admissions office would have to be explicit about it. On the other hand, I think some colleges are dissimulating about their adherence to the government directive, and they shouldn’t be allowed to do that.

*Further, Trump going to put all federal grants under political control to see if they should be continued.  (h/t Edwin) I’ve linked to Trump’s executive order, but there’s an article about it from ArsTechnica, which I quote below:

On Thursday, the Trump administration issued an executive order asserting political control over grant funding, including all federally supported research. The order requires that any announcement of funding opportunities be reviewed by the head of the agency or someone they designate, which means a political appointee will have the ultimate say over what areas of science the US funds. Individual grants will also require clearance from a political appointee and “must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they’re considered to “no longer advance agency priorities.” Until a system is in place to enforce the new rules, agencies are forbidden from starting new funding programs.

In short, the new rules would mean that all federal science research would need to be approved by a political appointee who may have no expertise in the relevant areas, and the research can be canceled at any time if the political winds change. It would mark the end of a system that has enabled US scientific leadership for roughly 70 years.

The text of the executive order recycles prior accusations the administration has used to justify attacks on the US scientific endeavor: Too much money goes to pay for the facilities and administrative staff that universities provide researchers; grants have gone to efforts to diversify the scientific community; some studies can’t be replicated; and there have been instances of scientific fraud. Its “solution” to these problems (some of which are real), however, is greater control of the grant-making process by non-expert staff appointed by the president.

In general, the executive order inserts a layer of political control over both the announcement of new funding opportunities and the approval of individual grants. It orders the head of every agency that issues grants—meaning someone appointed by the president—to either make funding decisions themselves, or to designate another senior appointee to do it on their behalf. That individual will then exert control over whether any funding announcements or grants can move forward. Decisions will also require “continuation of existing coordination with OMB [Office of Management and Budget].” The head of OMB, Russell Vought, has been heavily involved in trying to cut science funding, including a recent attempt to block all grants made by the National Institutes of Health.

What sorts of political litmus tests will these appointees apply to science funding? As mentioned above, they’ll need to be consistent with the president’s agenda and can’t promote “anti-American values.” The order also doesn’t want any funding for grants that suggest that sex isn’t binary, even though it is clearly not. Presumably, researchers who work on the hermaphroditic worm C. elegans are out of luck. Research institutions with lower facility costs—which will typically mean rural ones—will be favored for funding, which appears to be OMB trying to accomplish a previous goal that was blocked by the courts.

This is bad, bad, bad.  While some funding priorities can be set for areas by the government, to put political appointees in charge of making final funding decisions is a recipe for disaster. Further, the new order allows the government to cancel any grant at any time.  Once entire areas of research are given a budget, that is where the political intrusion must end—at least if science in America should be based on merit. More:

“In general, the executive order inserts a layer of political control over both the announcement of new funding opportunities and the approval of individual grants. It orders the head of every agency that issues grants—meaning someone appointed by the president—to either make funding decisions themselves, or to designate another senior appointee to do it on their behalf. That individual will then exert control over whether any funding announcements or grants can move forward. Decisions will also require “continuation of existing coordination with OMB [Office of Management and Budget].” The head of OMB, Russell Vought, has been heavily involved in trying to cut science funding, including a recent attempt to block all grants made by the National Institutes of Health. […]

It has been clear for a while that the administration is committed to adding ideological litmus tests to science and slashing research funding. However, Congress has shown indications that it doesn’t intend to go along with the cuts. This appears to be the administration’s response to Congress: An attempt to place a major roadblock to any new funding and establish the structure that will formally exert the ideological control that it wants.”

*Hooray! Nellie Bowles is still back with her Friday news-and-snark report at The Free Press. This week’s column is called “TGIF: The Ottoman President,” and I’ll steal a few items.

→ Oh, Tim: Tim Cook announced that Apple would invest $600 billion into America, including in American manufacturing. During an Oval Office visit celebrating the commitment, Cook presented Trump with a glass Apple plaque set in a gold base: “This box was made in the U.S., in California, and this glass comes off the Corning line. It’s engraved for President Trump; it’s a unique unit of one. It was designed by a U.S. Marine Corps corporal—a former one—that works at Apple now. . . designed it for you. And the base comes from Utah, and is 24-karat gold.” We brought you gold, sir.

And then here’s Trumpo thanking and roasting Tim: “I want to thank Tim Cook. He’s a great, great man, a visionary, a businessman, just about every quality he can have other than athleticism. I don’t know about that. I’m looking at him—I’m not a hundred percent sure.” There’s not much to say about this except that not only do you have to present hunks of precious metal to our leader to get in his good graces, you also have endure him humiliating you about your physical body for fun. We are two years from Trump forcing Tim Cook to play flag football on the Trump Cement Expanse, formerly known as the Rose Garden, in order to win government contracts. The CEO of Microsoft is going to have to bring a set of albino peacocks next.

→ . . . . the state of Victoria in Australia is now installing “machete amnesty safe disposal bins” at police stations. The thinking is that people can peacefully drop their machetes in the box. But why in the hell—if you have a machete—would you drop it in the box? Like, oh, I’m done with my stabbing days?

Victoria premier Jacinta Allan put it this way: “We’ve done this because we want to get these knives off the streets because these knives destroy lives.” There you go! See, you needed to just tell folks that these knives destroy lives. They have no idea that machetes can do that. They use the machetes for strawberry farming. Getting to work if the path is overgrown and also there’s someone to decapitate on the way. But after hearing a lovely middle-aged female Aussie premier explain that these machetes destroy lives, I’m sure everyone with a machete in the house will be turning it in, and quite promptly indeed. They should put a cigarette box right next to the machete one. Full pack, right down the chute. Only I have the key to both boxes, for safety.

→ MAGA’s only celebrity: A 2019 video of Sydney Sweeney shooting mannequins (they weren’t hot enough) and confidently reloading at a gun range recently resurfaced. After her ad for American Eagle went viral, it was revealed that Sweeney is a registered Republican (!) in Florida (!!). But I repeat myself. Trump posted his approval, while American Eagle stock soared more than 23 percent. And MAGA found its new, and only, celebrity to fixate on. It’s so sweet they get a celebrity. They’ve had to be happy with just Jon Voight, who doesn’t count. Do you remember the celebs who turned out for Trump’s first inauguration? It was so dark. I don’t want to shame them by listing them, but it was dark. They made that Clint Eastwood speech to the empty chair at the RNC look like a Super Bowl halftime show. So I’m happy for MAGA. They get their apportioned one (1) celebrity.

*Germany has suspended selling arms to Israel to punish it for starving Gazans, though it’s not at all clear that starvation, if it’s occurring, has anything to do with Israel now (see this Washington Post piece arguing that Israel is not starving Gazans):

Germany, a staunch supporter of Israel and its second-largest weapons supplier after the United States, said Friday that it would not approve new weapons exports to Israel “that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice.”

The announcement by Chancellor Friedrich Merz came as Berlin has been under pressure from European neighbors and public opinion at home.

It was not immediately clear which weapons exports would stop or if any shipments were imminent. But even if it stops short of a full arms embargo, Friday’s decision is a big policy shift for Germany, given its relationship with Israel, which is shaped by historical guilt over the Holocaust.
Since the European Union announced a deal with Israel in July to let more food into Gaza, aid groups say dozens of people have starved to death in the Palestinian enclave. Still, the E.U. as a bloc has refrained from imposing penalties on Israel, even as Brussels says famine is stalking “virtually the entire Gaza population,” and after a recent review warned of an Israeli siege weaponizing starvation.

Germany has been — and, so far, remains — a key holdout of efforts to pressure Israel at the European Union.

The 27-nation E.U. — Israel’s biggest trading partner — has threatened action since May. The E.U.’s diplomatic service launched a review that found Israel breached human rights obligations, and officials drafted options including suspending trade ties and placing sanctions on ministers.

That debate took a back seat when E.U. officials said last month that Israel had agreed to allow more aid shipments. But while the deal delayed action in Brussels, it has failed to get more food to the hungry people in Gaza, according to current and former E.U. diplomats, as well as aid agencies.

This is just peachy! Israel is feeding the enemy that attacked it while the war is still going on (this is unique), but the Jewish state is still—probably falsely—accused of starving Gazans, so Hamas gets exactly what it wants. And from Germany! The irony is strong here.

*The Freedom from Religion Foundation is again showing extreme mission creep, becoming full-on progressive.  But it still has to pretend that all their opposition to anything Republicans do is still based on separating church and state (the FFRF’s stated mission). In fact, I agree with most of its political views, like this one; it’s just that don’t like them dissimulating–pretending that they’re dealing with church-state issues when they’re really pushing “progressive’ political views. As I said. I agree with their statement below:

The Trump administration continues to wreak havoc on public health and the environment.

“Health” Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. deplorably announced this week that he will end mRNA contracts for flu and Covid vaccinations. Health and Human Services declared “a coordinated wind-down” of mRNA projects at the government’s biodefense agency. Contracts will either be altered or canceled, affecting nearly $500 million in mRNA-related projects, including some focusing on creating an H5N1 bird flu vaccine.

“The mRNA-based coronavirus vaccines are a marvel of scientific ingenuity and the culmination of years of U.S. investment in medical research that literally saved millions of lives,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “It’s tragic and untenable that a fanatic like Kennedy is being allowed to quash the use of one of the biggest breakthroughs in medical research history.”

Laughably, the HHS announcement claimed this destruction of medical research is in the name of “safety” and “ethical grounding.”

The American Medical Association and physicians across the country are holding their collective breath about whether Kennedy will remove all the panelists of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, just as he earlier removed all the members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Kennedy fired all 17 members of the vaccine task force, replacing them with some known vaccine skeptics. The AMA sent Kennedy a letter late last month urging him to retain the 16 panelists on the preventive services committee, pointing out how vital their role is in making care recommendations and determining what treatment insurers must cover.

Meanwhile, the dismantlement of environmental protections continues apace at the so-called Environmental Protection Agency. Last week, EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin proposed to repeal a watershed scientific finding enabling the federal government to regulate greenhouse gases.

I am on board with all that, but what does it have to do with church and state separation? Here’s the one-sentence explanation:

Under the preamble of our secular Constitution, the federal government is required to “promote the public welfare.” The Trump administration, to state the obvious, is doing the opposite in line with the Christian nationalist anti-science agenda of Project 2025.

Nope, that post has nothing to do with Christian nationalism. NOTHING.  And yet they reiterate their mission at the end:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters of nontheism.

So it goes. They really should change their name to the Freedom from Republicans Foundation. At least the initials remain the same.

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hli reviews plans with Andrzej. I don’t know about the “television studio.”

Hili: That was a wonderful Friday.
Me: Yes, two important things taken care of and one that was the most important.
Hili: And today is Saturday.
Me: Yes, we will be getting new AI tools and beginning the construction of the “Letters” television studio.

In Polish:

Hili: To był wspaniały piątek.
Ja: Tak, załatwione dwie sprawy ważne i jedna najważniejsza.
Hili: A dziś sobota.
Ja: Tak, Dostaniemy nowe narzędzia AI oraz zaczynamy budować studio telewizyjne „Listów”.

*******************

Masih hasn’t tweeted, but Titania did!

Two from Luana. First, Hezbollah will not give up terrorism:

. . . and the smart and articulate Steve Stewart-Williams is going to discuss (and defend) the gametic definition of sex in his upcoming book:

From Malcolm: remember this?

One from my feed. Colugos are called “flying lemurs,” and their closest relatives are primates. There are two species and they can’t really fly: they’re like souped up flying squirrels.

One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial. You can also read about Edith Stein here.  She was one of several Jews who converted to Catholicism out of piety, which didn’t save them from the gas.

. . . and two from Dr. Cobb. Having sampled durian in Singapore, I have to agree with the sign:

No smoking or late night durian munching in this Bangkok hotel 😐Outdoor smoking areas exist, but nothing for durian consumerists.

— Elizabeth Tasker (@elizabethtasker.bsky.social) 2025-08-08T15:35:19.366527Z

 

I don’t remember this (though it strikes a chord), but Matthew does. OY!

Happy 21st anniversary to the Dave Matthews Band poop incident en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Ma…

— Parker Molloy (@parkermolloy.com) 2025-08-08T14:04:08.090Z

29 thoughts on “Saturday: Hili dialogue”

  1. Q. Why not make one with pasta?
    Ans. I have had Shabbos kugels that come pretty close.

    Regarding a rebirth of supersonic transports (Concord and Soviet Tu-144): there is still r&d on how to do this safely and economically. Part of the economics involves being able to fly supersonic over populated areas, ie ameliorate the sonic boom. There are two subscale flight demonstrators currently in flight test programs in the U.S. trying to work this barrier.
    But I always did find the Concord in its supersonic configuration to be one beautiful airplane!

    Hili: Nooo! Not AI! Please.

    1. There was a time, Jerry, in British cookery, where “milk puddings’ ruled the roost. Rice pudding survives, as does the splendid tapioca pudding (“fish’s eyes in glue” – this one is worth searching out!). Semolina pudding is almost extinct and, most fortunately, no one would even think of making a macaroni pudding nowadays. That was made just like a rice pudding, and all you have to do is imagine macaroni cooked in the sweetened milk of a rice pudding.
      But we currently have so many blackcurrants and the blackberries are about to start, that milk puddings are not on the menu. We’ve just finished the sour cherries, so crumbles and pies are the order of the day.

      1. My grandmother who was Scottish made it for us as kids. Lovely. Thank goodness she didn’t give us haggis!

        D.A.
        NYC

  2. A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
    As a child I was taught that to tell the truth was often painful. As an adult I have learned that not to tell the truth is more painful, and that the fear of telling the truth — whatever the truth may be — that fear is the most painful sensation of a moral life. -June Jordan, writer, teacher, and activist (9 Jul 1936-2002)

  3. It would be silly to think that grants aren’t under political control now. At the moment, though, they are in the hands of bureaucrats.

    1. “The order also doesn’t want any funding for grants that suggest that sex isn’t binary, even though it is clearly not. Presumably, researchers who work on the hermaphroditic worm C. elegans are out of luck.”

      Links to a 2012 (!) article also in Ars Technica that deliberately confuses within-species sex differences (which are binary) with between-species differences among males (which are continuous and many) or among females, yet still concedes that “every sexually reproducing animal species on earth has just two sexes.” IOW binary.

      Also John Timmer doesn’t know anything about C. elegans, in which some individuals are hermaphrodites and others are males. Sex is still binary (male and female) in the hermaphrodites. No word yet on a third gamete type 🙁

  4. Two things:
    1. Academics have brought on themselves additional grant oversight. Jerry and others on this excellent blog have detailed how academia has pushed ideology into scientific pursuits. It’s fallacy to assume to assume every political appointee will put politics ahead science just as it was to assume academics always put science first.

    Merit is the ultimate measure of equality. Affirmative Action and DEI programs are lazy and smoke screens for lower standards, which breeds racism. Many times during my career, it was assumed I got the gig because I’m Hispanic. As an individual choice, I made sure that wasn’t the case. Thank you Affirmative Action. And Jerry, no two applicants are ever equal, dig deeper.

        1. Indeed. I congratulated Leslie MacMillan when he used it in a WEIT post, and he replied that he had gotten it from some podcast. Here was my first opportunity to quote it myself. (I usually give sources for quotes, but in this case don’t know which podcast.)

  5. It is interesting how the article that was briefly referenced about the sex binary reads mostly like a Fuentes piece. It emphasizes the great diversity of sex determination, using the same sorts of examples as that benighted writer would use. And yet it comes to the correct conclusion.

    1. I suggest we start referring to men as “bodies with prostates” on this website, which will include, of course, the bodies with prostata who identify as bodies with vaginas. A solution that should make everyone happy.

      1. And clearly it’s a non-binary spectrum, e.g. bodies formerly with prostates that had radical surgery and now are without.

        1. I don’t know if they remove prostates. It doesn’t seem necessary, and it would be very difficult as it’s fairly welded to the urinary tract.

          1. I don’t know what current practice is, but in 2011 surgeons thought it necessary to remove mine and did so – at least, in a five hour operation a robot controlled by surgeons did so – and that, plus radiation therapy, gave me thirteen years without cancer.

            Yes, it is welded to the urinary tract, so there are continuing consequences of surgery, but the continuing consequences of hormonal treatment are, in my experience, sufficiently unpleasant to make you wonder sometimes about the balance between quantity of life and quality of life.

  6. Stein was a convert to Catholicism. Her Jewish heritage was the key factor in her murder, I think.

    1. Yep, converts didn’t matter. Edwin Black’s excellent “IBM and the Holocaust” details how the Nazis kept track of everyone’s heritage.

  7. From the LA times..

    For Asian Americans, a changing landscape on college admissions
    Asian Americans are learning to deal with diversity in the changing landscape of college admissions
    In a windowless classroom at an Arcadia tutoring center, parents crammed into child-sized desks and dug through their pockets and purses for pens as Ann Lee launches a PowerPoint presentation.
    Her primer on college admissions begins with the basics: application deadlines, the relative virtues of the SAT versus the ACT and how many Advanced Placement tests to take.
    Then she eases into a potentially incendiary topic — one that many counselors like her have learned they cannot avoid.
    “Let’s talk about Asians,” she says.
    Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.
    African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
    She points to the second column.
    “Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
    The last column draws gasps.
    Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
    “Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.
    “Zenme keyi,” one mother hisses in Chinese. How can this be possible?

      1. The reference is to Asian-Americans. ‘Asian’ is just a shorthand. The SFFA case found big differences in average SAT scores. Quote from Google.

        “In the context of the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard case, it was revealed that Harvard admissions had different SAT score cutoffs based on race. Asian applicants, on average, had the highest SAT scores, while African American and Hispanic applicants had lower average scores. Specifically, the Harvard Crimson reported that Asian-American applicants had an average SAT score of 726, while White applicants averaged 713, Hispanic applicants averaged 650, and African American applicants averaged 622. The case also highlighted that Harvard sent recruitment letters to African American and Hispanic students with lower SAT scores compared to Asian and White students, according to The New York Post.

        Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

        Asian Applicants – Generally had the highest average SAT scores. The Harvard Crimson reported that Asian-American applicants averaged 726.

        White Applicants – Averaged lower than Asian applicants. The Harvard Crimson reported that White applicants averaged 713.

        Hispanic Applicants – Averaged lower than White and Asian applicants. The Harvard Crimson reported that Hispanic applicants averaged 650.

        African American Applicants – Averaged the lowest among the groups. The Harvard Crimson reported that African American applicants averaged 622.

        The SFFA case challenged these practices, arguing that Harvard’s use of race in admissions was discriminatory. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against affirmative action in college admissions, stating that it was unconstitutional”

        1. I remember that case but have never seen the numbers broken down like this. So ” bonus ” is the appropriate word because Harvard didn’t only rank students with lower scores higher, they gave them additional points to boot. That’s crazy!, No wonder a suit was filed. The numbers don’t just stop at equalization, which would have already been wrong. Just as the “Lee* woman characterized it, Harvard awarded bonus points for those who scored the lowest.

  8. Trump’s executive order, Section 3(a)(vi), mandates: “for scientific research discretionary grants, review by at least one subject matter expert in the field of the application, who may be a member of the grant review panel, the program officer, or an outside expert.”

    Perhaps having spent a professional life working under civilian control of the military, this idea of review by a political appointee doesn’t rattle me. Guess who can intervene on matters of life and death? Or on technical matters demanding specialized expertise? Or can override expert opinion on the proper mix of weapons to acquire? Would it be . . . politically-appointed civilians?! Oh my.

    If any scientists who are versed in writing applications for federal grants have time to read the entire executive order, I would greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on the perceived strengths and limitations. When you assess it, however, I’m curious whether your answer shifts depending on this circumstance: grants are being reviewed by 1) disinterested experts or 2) politicized experts, whether they be career employees of the executive branch or outside the government.

    If we cannot guarantee disinterested review, then I would much prefer a measure of democratic accountability. And I have no problem with a political appointee overriding any credentialed expert who can write the following: “The order also doesn’t want any funding for grants that suggest that sex isn’t binary, even though it is clearly not.”

    Not that such a scientist would ever think his professional opinion should override national priorities as determined by a democratically-elected President and his Senate-confirmed appointees, would he?

  9. Apparently it’s going to be illegal to own a machete in the state of Victoria after September 1st so presumably the drop boxes are a way of safely disposing of them. I guess there are people who own machetes for reasons that are not nefarious and who will get rid of them.

  10. I don’t think race should be a factor even in choosing between equally qualified applicants. Instead, what would be fair is to use evidence of actual disadvantage, such as familial poverty, as a factor in consideration.

    1. But even being ugly is an actual disadvantage (I’m being flippant, but it’s true). And being an abused child can be a serious disadvantage. As is familial poverty, or having a disability. Race is an umbrella factor, because if you happen to be an abused child, or poor, or have a disability, being a colored minority is generally a bigger disadvantage than being white.

      1. Harvard was using wealthy African immigrants to fulfill its black quota. Which is why using skin color as a proxy for disadvantage doesn’t work.

  11. “Tim Cook announced that Apple would invest $600 billion into America, including in American manufacturing.”

    I put all of these aspirational pledges (and there have been very many) into one bucket: talk is cheap.

Comments are closed.