Except lettuce.

The June 4 decision by S&P Dow Jones Indices—the company that creates and manages stock market indexes such as the S&P 500—means that SpaceX will not gain accelerated access to potentially billions more dollars through passive investment funds that automatically purchase shares of S&P 500 companies. An exception for SpaceX could have also allowed leading AI companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic to gain entry not long after their own expected initial public offerings (IPOs). That possibility has now been shuttered.

...

Those proposed changes included shortening the “seasoning period” for new IPOs from 12 months to six months, waiving the investable weight factor (IWF) requirement for MegaCap companies to make at least 10 percent of their shares publicly available, and waiving the requirements for MegaCap companies to demonstrate profitability in the latest quarter of the financial year along with the previous four quarters.

Such rule changes would have accommodated SpaceX’s plan to only offer approximately 3 percent of its IPO shares to public investors, and the fact that SpaceX is currently unprofitable with a growing debt load that has reached $29 billion because of its spending spree on AI infrastructure.

But in its final decision, the S&P Dow Jones Indices stated that “no changes will be made to the eligibility criteria including financial viability screens, seasoning period, or minimum IWF.” Even after the standard yearlong wait, SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI may struggle to deliver the consistent profitability necessary to qualify for the S&P 500.

...

However, the S&P Dow Jones Indices did “carve out one concession” by changing the investable weight factor rules for “lower-profile benchmarks” such as the S&P Total Market Index and Dow Jones US Total Stock Market Index, according to Quartz. That could allow an IPO faster entry into those indexes.

First off this article is basically arguing that Lynn's idea have become a religion in the Democratic party, and a religion that doesn't answer anything.

Second, the ways to fix this from a rooted evidence based method are State based and start with RCV and proportional voting. But it also means intentionalizing a institutional investment in people and ideas in democratic ideals which is taught, trained, placed, and promoted over decades, specifically focused on taking regulatory authority seriously.

There's more, but I'm tired of reading about ideas that critique without actionable answers. This is fixable but it's going to take generation and intention... As well as attention... Which the American people don't fucking have, even if we are all bloody angry.

More difficult to remove than install. Adding the file took zero clicks. Removing it requires (a) discovering the file exists, (b) understanding what it is, (c) navigating into a hidden user profile path, (d) deleting it (and on Windows, also clearing the read-only attribute first), and (e) accepting that Chrome will silently re-download it on next eligible window unless the user also navigates chrome://flags, enterprise policy, or platform-specific configuration tooling to disable the underlying Chrome AI feature [5]. None of those steps is documented in the place a normal user looks - none of them is even hinted at in default Chrome.

This is 5: https://pureinfotech.com/stop-chrome-gemini-nano-download-windows-11/

Obviously only windows focused, so how other platforms stop would require more searching.

So we now have a four-way evidence chain - macOS kernel filesystem events, Chrome's own per-profile state, Chrome's runtime feature flags, and Google's component-updater logs - all four agreeing on the same conduct, and the conduct is: a 4 GB AI model arrived on this user's disk without consent, without notice, on a profile that received zero human input, in a window of 14 minutes and 28 seconds, on a Tuesday afternoon.

Fair point about the median, and you're right that it should be resilient to top-heavy skew. But I think that 2.5% number is doing more heavy lifting than it deserves.

For starters, that's cumulative over roughly five years. So we're talking about 0.5% per year in real terms. (i.e. $250 for 50k) Statista's own headline on that data is "U.S. Wages Have Barely Kept Up With Inflation." For median wage that's maybe two nice dinners out a year. It's not keeping up with rent. It's not keeping up with insurance. It's definitely not a vacation.

And that gets to the bigger problem with CPI as the yardstick. CPI has been a point of contention for years, especially as it's been politically massaged to understate what people actually experience at the register. The things you cannot skip buying (housing, healthcare, food, insurance) have outpaced headline CPI by a mile. Deloitte's March 2026 consumer pulse found that discretionary spending intent dropped below the 2021 baseline. People who are genuinely better off don't cut discretionary spending. People whose essentials ate the raise do.

But the real K isn't even in income. It's in wealth. The Minneapolis Fed, U.S. Bank, and TD Economics all published analyses this year confirming the divergence is sharpest in asset appreciation and net worth, not wages. Your paycheck can be up 0.5% a year and that's technically "beating CPI," but if you don't own a home or a stock portfolio you missed the actual wealth escalator entirely. The top 10% holds something like two thirds of all equities. That's where the K really bites.

And here's the part that matches what you're seeing anecdotally about people above the median feeling squeezed. Michigan's April sentiment data shows an 11% drop across all income brackets, all age groups, all political affiliations. This isn't a bottom-of-the-ladder problem anymore. Credit card APRs went from around 16% to 22% in the same period wages "beat" CPI by half a percent a year. The raise went to Visa, not to vibes.

So I'm not saying the median number is wrong. I'm saying it's measuring the wrong thing.

It's like checking your speedometer while two of your tires are flat.

Make sense?

You aren't wrong about the decoupling, but it has more to do with the K-shaped economy we're living in. The wealthy are driving the headline numbers and can absorb price shocks that absolutely crush everyone else. When the top arm of the K is soaring and the bottom is flatlined, GDP looks great while your neighbor has three GoFundMes.

There are also structural issues that disconnect most Americans from politics, except when it hits their wallet. As Carville famously put it during the Clinton campaign: "It's the economy, stupid."

And Trump? Egotistical, almost certainly narcissistic, and--more importantly--an economic idiot whose policies actively make this worse. ITEP's analysis from last week shows that the net effect of his tax policies is a tax increase on every income group except the richest 5%. He might be able to navigate his companies through six bankruptcies and come out the other side richer, but translating that into policy that helps actual Americans? Not so much. Possibly because the narcissism makes it structurally impossible for him to prioritize anyone's interests over his own.

You're right that I oversimplified. Property destruction has always punctuated successful movements, and I shouldn't pretend otherwise. The Tea Party, sit-ins, suffragette window-smashing. Disruption is part of the toolkit.

Having said that, your three examples all share features that don't apply here: pre-democratic conditions, no legal redress, and, crucially, organized political infrastructure that the fire punctuated rather than replaced. The colonists had no seat in Parliament, but the Sons of Liberty had been running committees of correspondence for years before the Gaspée burned. The French monarchy hadn't convened the Estates General in 175 years, but sans-culotte sections were functioning political bodies before they were rioters. Haitian slaves had no ballot, but maroon networks existed for generations before the plantations lit up. In every case, the fire was punctuation on a sentence that was already being written. A Compton warehouse worker has the right to vote, however degraded that channel is, and vastly more material standing than anyone in your three examples. Context matters.

Important to this is this is that in our current context, Chenoweth and Stephan's data (hundreds of campaigns, 1900–2006) shows nonviolent movements succeed roughly twice as often and are about 10x more likely to produce durable democratic outcomes. That's not a moral claim, it is a strategic one. The movements that actually built worker power in conditions like ours, 1930s labor, Civil Rights, the UFW, won through disciplined organizing, not arson. The ones that went the other way got the Reign of Terror and Napoleon, or a century of crippling indemnity and isolation. Fire ends things; it doesn't build them.

Where I think you're actually right is on voting. "Vote harder" alone is weak. The real lever is organized labor and sustained civic infrastructure, and the U.S. has systematically dismantled both since the 1970s. That's the fight. Celebrating fires feels like solidarity but functions as content. And content is exactly what the attention economy wants from us instead of organizing.

And when fires have come without that scaffolding, they've usually backfired. The 1968 riots after King's assassination were a human response to grief, but the political result was Nixon's "law and order" realignment, which has been shaping American politics for almost sixty years. The Weather Underground bombings hollowed out a broad New Left coalition and gave the right a permanent talking point. The 2020 property destruction is the one in living memory: BLM's public support polled higher before the arson got sustained coverage than it ever did after. The peaceful mass mobilization moved the needle. The fires moved it back. Fire without scaffolding doesn't just fail to build, it gives the other side exactly the footage they need.

If the fires are a symptom of how squeezed working people are, I'm with you. If they're being sold as the strategy, I think the historical record and the data both say we lose that way.

And look, the reason I'm pushing on this isn't to lecture anyone for feeling good about a warehouse burning. I get it. The reason I'm pushing is that the stuff that actually works is boring. Honor a picket line. Donate to a strike fund. Join a workplace organizing effort, you're legally protected to do that even without a formal union. Show up to a tenant union meeting. Vote in a municipal election where turnout is 18 percent and your ballot is worth ten. None of that trends. None of it feels like solidarity the way a fire does. But it's the stuff that built the 40-hour week, and dismantling it is what got us here. If the choice is between content that feels like power and organizing that builds it, I'd rather we pick the second one, even when it's slow.

The '7 warehouse fires' claim is unverified. Only 2-3 can be confirmed, and accounts like ProudSocialist are framing unrelated incidents as a coordinated uprising. That's not journalism, it's narrative-building.

Abdulkarim said on video: "All you had to do was pay us enough to f*cking live. That's not revolutionary ideology. That's a 29-year-old warehouse worker who snapped.

Political violence in the U.S. is rising, that's documented. It's reaching levels not seen since the 1970s. Meanwhile, overall crime is actually falling. So what we're seeing isn't a general breakdown in society. It's targeted desperation in a country where working people feel increasingly squeezed.

History shows that sustained, organized labor action (strikes, unions, collective bargaining) has done more to improve working conditions than any fire ever has. The most effective 'anti-capitalist' movement in American history was the labor movement, and it won through solidarity, not sabotage."

Accounts on the left are celebrating these fires as class warfare. Accounts on the right will use them to paint all workers as dangerous radicals. Both are exploiting real suffering for engagement. Neither is offering solutions.

You don't need to fabricate a revolution to prove that working people are struggling. A man burned down a warehouse because he couldn't afford to live on his wages, and that fact alone should be enough to demand change. But celebrating arson isn't solidarity. It's spectacle. And spectacle doesn't pay rent. If you actually care about the working class, put your energy into the things that have historically worked: organizing, striking, voting, and building collective power.

Anything else is just content.

Not sure you would, both are FOSS and if it works I wouldn't change. Looks like similar feature sets at the core, so unless you want something specific I'd leave it.

Just good to have options.