The steel man is that you can’t peer review your way to breakthroughs that change consensus, because peer review relies on consensus, so peer review has to be made subordinate to accountable decision makers.
Maybe we changed the rules so that our capital markets can protect our champions from large Chinese buy pressure at lower post-IPO valuations. Plus, these companies have probably had to demonstrate earnings stability (yes, unaudited) in order for the rules to be waived.
Is the text of the waiver and its reasoning anywhere? I guess I'll read tfa.
No, the technical opinion. MCP is an interesting integration pattern. Calling it "more APIs" is like calling software "just some code". It's true, not interesting.
Yes, although as the Koch Brothers point out in their book: you have to play by the rules that exist, not the rules you want.
If you read, eg, Buffet, he makes the point that a manager donating to a political cause, whether the Heritage Foundation or, God forbid, something as far right as the SPLC, makes that donation with money that otherwise accrues to the shareholders. The manager therefore creates an agency problem, where he might pursue his own interests at the expense of the owners.
If they are aligned, the manager can retain the earnings and create a dividend for the owners, such that they can then make the donation directly. If they are not aligned with the owners, they are redistributing wealth.
I am not surprised that the Left advocates for backdoor wealth redistribution, but I would prefer they be honest about it.