They often are, yes. I'm not sure exactly what "in debt" means to OP. But, when I use it like this I generally mean "negative net worth" not "carrying a line of credit".
I currently have a balance on a CC, but I don't consider myself in debt, because it's smaller than my checking account balance, and that's smaller than my investment account balance, and that's smaller than my retirement account balance.
I don't own a home, but I also didn't really consider myself "in debt" when I purchased my current car.
Oddly enough I would say I am "in debt to" my CC company, because I do owe money to them and they do not owe money to me. The "to X" part of the phrase restricts my consideration to just two-party financial relationship, in my mind. When you leave off the "to X", I consider all the financial relationship I have and (roughly) sum over them.
I don't think it is shrinking globally, yet. But, some countries (e.g. South Korea) are in dire situations due to shrinking and aging population already.
I've dealt with people that made it to adulthood not really understanding that if they have cash in their pocket, but more debt than that, they don't really have money available to spend on frivolous things. Some of them are my friends.
They will be "broke" 5 days of the week, but spend freely from when then cash their paycheck (or get that next payday loan!) until all they have is change.
But, I've been lucky. I got a degree without taking on debt AND the worst CC hole I had to dig myself out of was not even to the limit of one card. I think most people have to ignore student or medical or other debt just to function...
The the office holder is where the power resides and where the decision is made -- they aren't a figurehead after the swearing-in, no matter what their role was in the campaign.
But, sure, depending on their background how "good" their head is, they certainly don't have to previously have been a chief executive to make a good president.
I'm mostly unaware of Jon Stewart's roles other than being on-camera / eye-candy, except for possibly some non-scripted interview questions (with him on either side). But, from the entertainment world, I think a directing experience probably does exist in the same "space" as chief executive.
I agree, but clearly lack of executive competence isn't a blocker for much of the electorate. Jon Stewart does seem genuine informed and engaged on current political topics, so he'd certainly be better than someone that's "simply" well-known and well-liked.
I think TV stars could be valuable resources to a campaign, but I don't think they should generally be the candidate. I'd actually prefer a "career politician" that has a career they celebrate.
My understanding is that she didn't think he should resign, tho.
I think it must be possible for anyone to be "rehabilitated" through restorative service and at least the outward appearance of inner change. If you make it impossible to "come back", that just encourages bad actors to band together AND get worse.
I'm not convinced that Al Franken has done enough, but I really haven't paid attention / researched anything around him or the events since he resigned.
I've never really liked this meme. I quite dislike AI, but just because your NN sucks doesn't mean NNs or AI in general is fundamentally poor.
I often write very poorly performing programs due to mistakes, lack of knowledge, or just general incompetence. That doesn't mean all my programs perform poorly. It certainly doesn't mean all your programs perform poorly.
"AI" sucks for a lot of reasons, but so does this image.
I can't say I'm a (normal) vegan, but I'm definitely an AI vegan. I was turned off by the ethical considerations, and the few "bites" I have tried leave a bad taste in my mouth. I avoid using it because much of the training data was (and is) stolen, the power costs are far too high compared to the utility, and it's basically worthless to me, having a screwed up response to nearly every prompt I tried.
The way I had it described to me was that veganism is against the exploitation of all animals, including "stealing" honey from a hive.
But, "vegan" is a label at least as malleable as "Christian".
To some people, this Foie Gras might be vegan, if they can't find the exploitation. To others, large-scale U.S. produce might be non-vegan since it depends on exploitative labor (humans are animals) practices. To a few, mussels are vegan because there's no mind to suffer or be exploited. To a very few, plants that show a "pain" response are non-vegan, even if that response happens over time, as long as it has a clear trigger in human interference (which is expliotation due to the "pain"), despite the complete lack of a nervous system, which humans (and other animals) use to feel pain.
Anyway, I'm NOT a vegan, but I do try to limit my meat consumption. It just feels like the amount I used to eat isn't really globally sustainable, and I take up too many resources in to many other ways, too.
Enigma Heart isn't erotic. Blobun isn't much of an RPG, and probably not erotic to most people -- tho slimegirls is a tag I've seen before. Kitsune Tails isn't an erotic RPG, it's a platformer.
But, they are all lesbian, and I want to be able to purchase and play them.
I think that's a bad objection. It's idealistic in the worst way, it's making "Perfect [...] the enemy of the good". Plus, there are significant practical advantages to a fixed-length addressing scheme, and any fixed-length going to have a maximum. So, under the constraint of fixed-length addressing "big enough" is all we have.
128 bits really is quite hard to fill up, we'll have to worry about a lot of very different things before the run out of addresses. Like speed-of-light latency vs. TCP (and possibly TLS session) timers for interplanetary connections.
They often are, yes. I'm not sure exactly what "in debt" means to OP. But, when I use it like this I generally mean "negative net worth" not "carrying a line of credit".
I currently have a balance on a CC, but I don't consider myself in debt, because it's smaller than my checking account balance, and that's smaller than my investment account balance, and that's smaller than my retirement account balance.
I don't own a home, but I also didn't really consider myself "in debt" when I purchased my current car.
Oddly enough I would say I am "in debt to" my CC company, because I do owe money to them and they do not owe money to me. The "to X" part of the phrase restricts my consideration to just two-party financial relationship, in my mind. When you leave off the "to X", I consider all the financial relationship I have and (roughly) sum over them.