I didn't know anyone was splitting hairs as to whether the phrase was to be applied to the helpless. Regardless, it always seems to be used as a cudgel against those whom the invoker believes is lazy or undeserving of God's help. (As an atheist though the phrase always seemed like a justification for why prayers were not being answered.)
My mother has invoked it at various points in my life to try to motivate me to do the bare minimum to help myself when she did not think I was doing even that much (and was capable of doing it). I suppose that could have seemed like a cudgel to observers, but it was not. As for prayers being unanswered, there are two tragedies in this world. One is not getting what you want. The other is getting it. Interestingly, th…
Mouse Utopia experiment doesn’t give mice space it’s just not the kind of restriction that’s initially obvious.
The modern take is when you put animals into environments well outside what they evolved for you get seemingly bizarre behavior.
"The computer is huge, you know, I told Elon the other day, and by the way I was the first one to say this, the computer is tremendous, tremendously important. Baron, you know, he's so good with the computer, and that's what I said many times, you know, good genes, good genes. A friend of mine, great guy, very smart guy, told me the other day, Donald, the computer, and by the way, this is what most people don't reali…
Is this a real quote from Donald Trump, or a humorous "this-is-what-he-would-say" thing?
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it's true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it's four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.
So in what way does this help the American people?
I'm not endorsing it, but it's roughly consistent with Trump's underlying philosophy that the international systems that USG manages are a subsidy from the US taxpayer to the rest of the world, and one which goes unappreciated. Under this premise, the USG would save money at little cost if they were replaced by industry consortiums or other countries' state initiatives. If my extrapolation is correct, even GPS might…
id agree with cybersecurity, but maybe not navigation? Even accounting for secondary effects, Currently supporting free navigation, especially in the Indian ocean and red sea mostly benefits other country, as the us is ~energy independent.
So in what way does this help the American people?
>So in what way does this help the American people? Shutting down Mitre and the CVE is against American interests, both public and private. That said, you can make an argument, one that revolves around cost (was the CVE DB worth $50M a year, especially given its backlog?). The other part of that argument rests on assuming there will be a private or semi-private replacement for the service, that there may be many of t…
$50 is about $7 per American. Could MITRE be more efficient? Yeah maybe. Probably, even. But cutting off funding entirely isn't the way to make it happen. This decision isn't about saving the American taxpayer money, it's about weaking the US, and it serves exactly one person.
So in what way does this help the American people?
I'm not endorsing it, but it's roughly consistent with Trump's underlying philosophy that the international systems that USG manages are a subsidy from the US taxpayer to the rest of the world, and one which goes unappreciated. Under this premise, the USG would save money at little cost if they were replaced by industry consortiums or other countries' state initiatives. If my extrapolation is correct, even GPS might…
For the same reason the US considers its self the "leader" of the world. You can't have it both ways, if you want to "lead", you've gotta pay for it.
Has the U.S. ever claimed to be the leader of the world? I do not think any country has ever claimed that title. The closest to it would be some of the remarks that are supposedly made to each Pope upon becoming Pope. That said, there is the similar sounding title called “the leader of the free world” applied to the U.S. president since the end of WWII. I always thought that was the result of military alliances, not…
>So in what way does this help the American people? Shutting down Mitre and the CVE is against American interests, both public and private. That said, you can make an argument, one that revolves around cost (was the CVE DB worth $50M a year, especially given its backlog?). The other part of that argument rests on assuming there will be a private or semi-private replacement for the service, that there may be many of t…
$50 is about $7 per American. Could MITRE be more efficient? Yeah maybe. Probably, even. But cutting off funding entirely isn't the way to make it happen. This decision isn't about saving the American taxpayer money, it's about weaking the US, and it serves exactly one person.
There are 150M taxpayers in the US… so $50M is about 33 cents per American…
So in what way does this help the American people?
To play devils advocate here, a thought comes to mind... Should the US be the one to handle the CVE database globally? The current administration wants to see other parts of the world help carry the load. A little scare could be the push needed to make this either distributed or handled by a coalition. This could be a positive for the US (who doesn't want to be the sole funder) and for those who don't want the US to…
Your premise is flawed. Reframe the question like this: Should the US be the sole arbiter of software vulnerabilities? Absolutely not! But that doesn't mean the US should cut off the spigot. Other countries should start their own version of CVE, so they can check each other's work, and disclose vulnerabilities that certain governments may desire to keep secret.
"The Washington Monument syndrome, also known as the Mount Rushmore syndrome or the firemen first principle, is a term used to describe the phenomenon of government agencies in the United States cutting the most visible or appreciated service provided by the government when faced with budget cuts."