While true, there is another nuance missing here. The deficit was higher in 2020 & 2021 due to the Covid stimulus spending. Looking at 2017-2019 for Trump and 2022-2024 for Biden probably gives a fairer picture of what happened during both presidencies. It's basically been an upward trend since 2015, excluding the Covid outliers.
>I think it depends on how you describe "wealthy". The life of someone who makes $200k a year isn't hugely different from someone who makes $50k. You still have to drive yourself to work and sit in rush hour traffic with every other peasant, for example.
One of the biggest differences between those salary levels is the housing they enable. 200k salary will allow for owning a home in most places (in the US, at least), while 50k will not. From there flows a lot of other things, like crime/safety, schools (if you have kids), etc, and even can improve your example: 200k can get you a place closer to work with a shorter commute, even if some of it still is spent in rush hour.
After fees is a bit tacky, but, at least in the US, I think it is considered good etiquette to tip on the original amount before discounts. I remember this came up a lot when Groupon was big offering a lot of BOGO deals.
Numerous people (Matt Levine, etc) smarter than me have written about how there was no $1B break up fee. That fee only came into play if something prevented the deal, like regulators blocking it. Him having buyer's remorse was not sufficient to trigger that clause.
Sure, but the Congress that approved it never felt its consequences because it took another 200 years for it to become ratified. So the first group it affected was definitely not the same group that voted for it.
When push came to shove, how many Democratic leaders (Reps and Senators) voted against or objected to the electoral college results in 2017? It was less than 10 Representatives and no Senators, meaning none of the objections were even put to a vote[1]. That is a far cry from what occurred in 2021.
The claim wasn't "CPUs in 2017 are not faster than CPUs in 2003" or even "CPUs in 2017 are not much faster than CPUs in 2003"; the claim was that they haven't followed Moore's law since 2003, so applying it to CPU speed nowadays is inaccurate. Of course CPUs are faster now than they were 14 years ago, just not as fast as the case where Moore's law still applied to CPU speed.