Does this imply that user-provided content is fundamentally incompatible with an ad-funded model?
There seems to be massive inertia on both sides: advertisers don't want to be placed next to user-provided content, and users want to pay for content via ad views. I wonder which is easier to change?
I'm surprised that State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) is being eliminated; it reimburses states for the money spent housing unauthorized immigrants pending deportation.
Isn't the administration's plan to deport a bunch of people? This shifts the burden of deportation costs from a federal level (where all states share it equally) to a local level, where states that have more deported people pay directly.
So if you're Texas, Arizona[0], or other states with high percentages of unauthorized immigrants, you're going to lose a federal subsidy of hundreds of millions, and either lay off a lot of corrections workers or pay that cost yourselves through increased tax revenue?
For example, ARPA's budget would be cut from $305 million per year to $0 per year, saving every US citizen $0.93.
Per the given document, the total reductions and eliminations would save $48,397,000,000 saving US citizens $147.92 per year.
I'm editorializing, but I think that, given the size of the budgets we're talking about, I am getting a good return on my investment, and would rather have these programs than an extra couple hundred bucks.
Tangential, but I thought HN might find it interesting...
The article quotes the director of the Human Rights Campaign (who you may know from their bumper stickers, a blue square with a yellow equality symbol in it), who is named Ty Cobb.
There are at least two lawyers named Ty Cobb; one represents Donald Trump [0], the other is the director [1] of the largest LGBT civil rights advocacy group.
...or, they'll be a momentary novelty that Generation Z will view as the 21st century equivalent of sticking your head through a cardboard cutout to pretend you're Dale Earnhardt or Santa Claus or whatever.
On the homepage when you hover over, but say it's $3.1B (the number doesn't really matter because it's impossible to gauge how much goes to military spending)
>U.S. assistance helps ensure that Israel maintains its Qualitative Military Edge (QME) over potential regional threats, preventing a shift in the security balance of the region and safeguarding U.S. interests.
My argument here is that the US is outsourcing innovation to countries like Israel rather than investing in it domestically. This likely serves to kill 2 birds with one stone but it makes it weird to index the 2 countries against each other.
And of that military spending, IIRC >=50% is only allowed to be spent on purchasing from US companies (i.e. driving US military innovation) and IIUC from 2019 onwards that percentage will go up to 100%, so it will primarily drive US military innovation (and at the same time discourage Israeli military innovation, since the Israeli government will be less likely to spend money on local military products)
The difference between 3.1B and 1300B dollars is significant and it is bizarre that you cite a source and then say "the number doesn't really matter". The number definitely does matter...
The number you initially claimed in spite of your own source contravening it would support your argument... if one was moving 1300B from a 18620B economy to a 317B economy... that is to say, providing support equal to 400% of the recipient's GDP, that would be significant.
The actual numbers given in the source you provided are insignificant and don't support your argument.
Someone will surely try your suggestion at some point, and I hope we don't get to find out what the Enron of water supply looks like.
"Newly discovered tapes have revealed how the energy corporation Enron shut down at least one power plant on false pretences, deliberately aggravating California's crippling 2001 blackouts with the aim of raising prices."
What is the LD50 of a social network?