So would suicides brought on by others or society be considered murder?

Also, I’m reminded of the character Stephen Norton in Agatha Christie’s book Curtain — Norton does not physically commit the murders himself; instead, he operates as a psychological sadist who manipulates vulnerable people into murdering others.

I’m wondering as well whether there isn’t a STEM bias in this approach. Yes, it does respond to the constitutive rigidity of an evaluation system born in an industrial culture that bases everything on objects called “credits” and “grades”. And yes society (but not necessarily education alone) should find ways to encourage the so-called gifted. But we have a lot of more basic work to do on how we define classes of people, such as gifted and ungifted, social and asocial and other binary distinctions that may be fundamentally misleading.
To say nothing of the question of “gifted at what”, which inevitably means gifted at the things the teachers or the institutions recognize as being valuable.

Alan, I have to thank you as well for providing Bluto’s last name, which I was unaware of even though I was a devoted fan of Popeye growing up. I still love my spinach.

No one knows for sure, but it’s believed perhaps Âœ or more of the massive U.S. trade deficit is simply an accounting artifact due to methods that fail to capture how goods and services are priced and paid for, the tax games being played by corporations.

Moreover, the defining feature of this particular crop of billionaires is there sense that they are somehow persecuted, victims of the society and economy, the regulatory system that has allowed them to accumulate such wealth. They are bitter about their ability to accumulate vast wealth and enormous power and prestige. They feel hard done by
 Think about this? They think something nasty was done to them, that they were screwed
 This is really hard to understand. These are the worlds greatest winners ever, but they feel they were cheated, by who?

Amazon, Amazon Web Services and Blue Origin, his space launch company. All are particularly vulnerable to President Trump’s displeasure – Amazon through antitrust and other enforcement and AWS and Blue Origin to loss of government contracts. Bezos stands to gain a lot from Trump’s favor and lose a lot were he to antagonise him.

Larry Ellison and his son, David Ellison are yet another example of – they may be politically right wing, but centrally Larry at least is a show me the money guy. CBS News is less important to him than the commercial position of Oracle and his other businesses, or Paramount.

Sarish Jha

Artificial intelligence will not wait for India to get comfortable with it. It will not slow down for parliamentary debates, skilling gaps or power shortages. It will simply reorganize economies — rewarding those who build patiently and exposing those who improvise loudly.

For decades, India has arrived late to technological revolutions. Railways were colonial inheritances. Electricity scaled unevenly. Mobile telephony exploded only after the world had matured the model. Each time, we compensated with scale. But scale is not strategy. And in artificial intelligence, scale alone will not save us.

The question before India is not whether it can rival the United States or China at the frontier. It cannot, not yet. The frontier is built on decades of deep research ecosystems, semiconductor sovereignty and sustained capital deployment that India has never matched. Pretending otherwise risks repeating an old national habit: mistaking aspiration for capacity.

The real question is harder, and more urgent: Can India become the world’s most consequential deployer of AI?

That distinction matters. AI leadership will not belong only to those who build the largest models. It will belong to those who apply intelligence at population scale — in farms, clinics, classrooms, courts and supply chains. It will belong to countries that convert algorithms into productivity. India, paradoxically, is positioned to do exactly that.

Laudable.
But how.?