I mean to call her ineffective we'd need to know how hard the task is. Given the FTC has been a regular target of budget gutting and having hostile chairs appointed for decades, we don't have that information.
And a deeply deeply biased court system that has been nothing but pro-business for ages.
Borkism has been the law of the land & figuring out to how take a judicial system which has been winnowed to just a small narrow view & make it reconsider mandates it used to have, long long ago, requires not just good casework but courts that have re-developed some appetite for ruling in businesses.
Tricky, since even if we assume the IQ test is producing a relevant metric there's significant run-to-run variation in test results. A lot of people would get retired prematurely if they happen to roll those dice low.
Nonprofits try really, really hard to make money well beyond their near-term expenses. Wikimedia Foundation is (in)famous for this.
First, they want a rainy-day fund to cover fixed expenses when income fluctuates. Second, and more importantly, they might want to create a massive endowment that provides them with stable income so that they're not beholden (or accountable) to donors or their usual business partners.
The only difference, at the end of the day, is whether they ever want to IPO.
The other reason a non-profit tries to more than cover its expenses is to accomplish its mission.
The point of non-profits is that their goal is to accomplish something other than profiting. Sometimes the goal can cost a lot of money to accomplish, often much more than just the cost of paying its employees.
For example a non-profit that raises money for cancer research might have very low costs and raise tons of money without raising eyebrows. Because they put the majority toward their goal, and everybody understands the goal, and "profit" is not that goal.
They're actually a great example, they have a defined amount of financial runway they maintain, and they don't exceed it. You might notice they don't leave the fundraising banners up all year.
It's also a forward-looking move, if everything moves to Vulkan than open-source driver efforts can focus on Vulkan instead of trying to do both Vulkan and OpenGL.
> If OpenGL is maintained as a fallback, then how does adding Vulkan and keeping OpenGL simplify the code?
Well it doesn't right now, but can in the future because it opens the door to dropping OpenGL entirely.
I've never noticed climate scientists having any particular control over the narrative at all. I've only ever seen them being realistic and focusing on solutions when they're trying to communicate.
I don't think the coverage is the climate scientists fault.
I think there's a few factors going into making this more likely (though still unlikely on the whole)
Much of the difficulty of being trans is social, which makes it more likely for people to come out / actively transition in environments with less social consequences. Programming, as an activity which can be anonymous and online fits that bill simply because there's less socializing at all.
And speaking of social difficulties, most people don't want to be social trailblazers. They don't want to be the first trans person in a group and deal with the potential existing prejudices, or more likely ignorance. So if you see a group that already contains trans people, you're probably seeing a group you can slide into without much difficulty.
The North American development pattern is unsustainable. It costs more money than to maintain than could possibly be paid for by property taxes. It's wildly inefficient in basically every way.
We've been okay for a while since we use the influx of cash from new developments to support our existing maintenance obligations, but that adds new maintenance in the future.
It's functionally a Ponzi scheme, and now it's starting to unravel. It'll happen in the U.S. too, just slower since the U.S. is bigger.
