)
Wealth, certainly. I find it very, very difficult to ascribe taste, and definitely can't find any sympathy. For any hereditary "nobility," anywhere — including the children of the ultrarich who haven't bothered with the titles associated with the peerage (like the new owner of Paramount).
- Quite possibly the only redeeming aspect of the current "generative artificial intelligence" engines based on "large language models" is that they aren't even capable of being accused of behavior like depicted/described/implied in the Epstein files. That said, they're plenty selfish and lack impulse control. So it may be only a matter of time…
- Which is less discouraging than politicians. Especially politicians overtly breaking military regulations on a military base (not to mention being draft dodgers themselves). Of course, if the self-appointed gatekeepers — whether in the just-moved-off-camera smoke-filled rooms or not — were less interested in establishing/maintaining their own (personal) powerbases… ok, then they wouldn't be politicians, never mind.
- Of course, politics is far from the only place that self-appointed gatekeepers screw things up for everyone except themselves. Consider the fundamental problems with NYC-based commercial publishing, which this article completely misses. The fundamental problem with their model is that the trade segments have appointed themselves the gatekeepers for what is "good" in narrative text (especially, but not only, fiction of all categories), but without examining either the distinction between "individual work" and "body of work"… or their own qualifications to make such judgments. And in many ways, they're even less prepared to make the same judgments as to the financials.
- TV isn't any better — nor, for that matter, are the "critics," because this piece for all of its perceptiveness on some kinds of failures mistakenly treats all "serial TV" as if it has the same internal standards for "success." Yellowjackets, All in the Family, Person of Interest, and M*A*S*H can't even be evaluated within the same rubrics. Maybe not even with parallel rubrics. The less said about some non-critics, though, the better.
- But even those two exemplars of self-deception are more honest than finance, and certainly more honest than some jaw-droppingly obtuse criticisms from those even less qualified than TV critics. (Perhaps not as obtuse as TV personalities, though.)
I'll have more to say on the chickening-out and legal reasoning problems with the tariff opinion yesterday before long. The key thing to remember is this: The decision not to decide is itself a decision; and with that in mind, all nine members of the court abrogated substantial parts of their responsibilities. Even though six of them reached the only defensible result (without agreeing on why)…